Has any top boxer lost to more underdogs than Tyson?

[jaclem2]

..pay no attention to those coo coo odds and read j-c's post, which deals in reality.

[Rocky Balboa]

I have to admit that I am impressed by anyone who bet on Holyfield to beat him in the first fight.

Indeed, but I am shocked to hear Tyson was the betting fav in the rematch! That's ridiculous!

He took a hell of a beating from Douglas & from Evander in their first encounter. Tyson's durability should be in no doubt! Lews got KO'd with single shots, that never happened to Tyson!

[oliverfennell]

Obviously the 42-1 Buster Douglas.

Holyfield opened at 25-1 against for the first match. I know that's ridiculous in hindsight, but that's how it was seen at the time. Tyson was also favoured in the rematch.

Williams was 14-1 against. Don't remember the odds for McBride, but he must have been a double-digit 'dog too.

I've always been very sceptical that any bookies were actually offering 42/1 on Douglas. You never see odds like that for any fight no matter how routine the outcome is expected to be. I wonder if Tyson was 42/1 on and someone assumed (which people often do) that this meant Douglas would be 42/1 against, and the myth has perpetuated.

I can tell you for sure Williams was not 14/1 because I bet on him. I think he started out at 8/1 at the very most, maybe less, and had shortened by fight time. I think McBride might have been about 7/1.

I was too young for Holyfield too but again 25/1 would be unprecedented in my experience for a fight of that kind. Remember you could only get 6/1 Derrick Chisora to beat Wlad.

Douglas at 42-1 is of course very famous, but I don't know about any evidence.

Holyfield at 25-1 was quoted in Boxing News.

I don't have a source to hand for Williams at 14-1 but I ran a website at the time and remember citing those odds in the fight report. Of course odds change, and individual bookmakers vary (and British bookies would have had shorter odds than American), but I used the longest odds I knew of for the sake of background to the upset.

[oliverfennell]

You're asking me to take into account for a fighter's legacy betting lines!?

Of course betting lines are dictated by consumers more than the sport itself, but nevertheless they ARE a gauge as to the quality of a match, or at least its perceived quality.

Besides, whatever the odds, what can't be denied is that four of Tyson's defeats were to massive underdogs, however you specify them. That's my point, and the betting angle is just for illustrative purposes.

[oliverfennell]

Honestly as a younger man I thought Holyfield, like Spinks but to a lesser extent, was too small for Mike. Tyson had only really had problems with tall bigger men. I never thought he would beat Lewis but I really believed Holy (who I admired) was just being hyped up as a big name opponent.

It bothers me even now that some try to make out like Tyson was a shot fighter at that point. Holy was the shop-worn boxer, who had taken his licks and seen better days.

I remember the build-up well. Holyfield was indeed just seen as a big name. People thought there was no way he could win. It was thought that:

- Holyfield was well past his best, while Tyson was back to near his best
- Holyfield was too small
- If Bowe and Cooper could floor Holyfield, Tyson would murder him.
- Holyfield was not far removed from that suspicious heart ailment he suffered vs Moorer.
- Holyfield didn't punch hard enough to trouble or deter Tyson.
- Tyson was faster and sharper.

[oliverfennell]

Roy Jones has lost to lots of underdogs by now probably.

Good call. All his defeats bar Calzaghe and Tarver 3 were big upsets. Tarver 2 was a big upset because a lot of people felt Jones was going to do to him what he did to Griffin in their rematch.

[oliverfennell]

Tyson is overrated, plain & simple.

I disagree. Tyson was a monster 20 years ago. Iron Mike is one of the most ferocious fighters ever seen in the ring.

He was only a monster in fights he was winning. He never came back from a points deficit or a knockdown, nor did he avenge any of his defeats.

[oliverfennell]

To answer the title question. Didn't Muhammad Ali lose to underdogs like Norton and Spinks.

Norton and Spinks > Douglas and Williams

Hell, even Berbick > McBride by an enormous margin!

[JC]

Obviously the 42-1 Buster Douglas.

Holyfield opened at 25-1 against for the first match. I know that's ridiculous in hindsight, but that's how it was seen at the time. Tyson was also favoured in the rematch.

Williams was 14-1 against. Don't remember the odds for McBride, but he must have been a double-digit 'dog too.

I've always been very sceptical that any bookies were actually offering 42/1 on Douglas. You never see odds like that for any fight no matter how routine the outcome is expected to be. I wonder if Tyson was 42/1 on and someone assumed (which people often do) that this meant Douglas would be 42/1 against, and the myth has perpetuated.

I can tell you for sure Williams was not 14/1 because I bet on him. I think he started out at 8/1 at the very most, maybe less, and had shortened by fight time. I think McBride might have been about 7/1.

I was too young for Holyfield too but again 25/1 would be unprecedented in my experience for a fight of that kind. Remember you could only get 6/1 Derrick Chisora to beat Wlad.

Douglas at 42-1 is of course very famous, but I don't know about any evidence.

Holyfield at 25-1 was quoted in Boxing News.

As far as Douglas being 42/1 it wouldn't be the first time a myth perpetuated in boxing with no actual evidence for it. See Willie Pep winning a round without throwing a punch or that Benn was helped back into the ring vs Mclellen by the press row. In both cases the evidence to the contrary is relatively easily available but it makes no difference

As far as Holyfield goes, as mentioned I was too young, but in my view it's more likely the Boxing news writer made a mistake or had misinformation than the bookies actually offering 25/1 on a fight of that nature, it just wouldn't make sense. You have to be careful with reported odds for fights. I've noticed that Sky often quote slightly longer odds than what's actually available after they do the tale of the tape before the first bell.

[oliverfennell]

As far as Holyfield goes, as mentioned I was too young, but in my view it's more likely the Boxing news writer made a mistake or had misinformation than the bookies actually offering 25/1 on a fight of that nature, it just wouldn't make sense.

You say "a fight of that nature", but honestly, Holyfield WAS seen as a prohibitive underdog, whatever the betting line. Almost nobody could make a case for him winning and many people even feared for his health. Knowing what we know now, both about the fight itself and the two boxers, it's hard to imagine, but really, it was seen at the time as a big mismatch sold only off the back of Holyfield's name and the "better late than never" angle (they were supposed to have fought a couple of times in the early 90s).

[jaclem2]

..sometimes perceptions of a fight....and sportswriters i think even moreso than quoted odds can hurt a fights gate...tommy farr complained that was what happened when he challenged joe louis.....louis was made such a big favorite and an early knockout predicted by so many writers that a lot of people thought it was a mismatch and didn't go....of course tommy not only went the distance but made a decent competitive challenge..

[Syntax Error]

I've always been very sceptical that any bookies were actually offering 42/1 on Douglas. You never see odds like that for any fight no matter how routine the outcome is expected to be. I wonder if Tyson was 42/1 on and someone assumed (which people often do) that this meant Douglas would be 42/1 against, and the myth has perpetuated.

I can tell you for sure Williams was not 14/1 because I bet on him. I think he started out at 8/1 at the very most, maybe less, and had shortened by fight time. I think McBride might have been about 7/1.

I was too young for Holyfield too but again 25/1 would be unprecedented in my experience for a fight of that kind. Remember you could only get 6/1 Derrick Chisora to beat Wlad.

Douglas at 42-1 is of course very famous, but I don't know about any evidence.

Holyfield at 25-1 was quoted in Boxing News.

As far as Douglas being 42/1 it wouldn't be the first time a myth perpetuated in boxing with no actual evidence for it. See Willie Pep winning a round without throwing a punch or that Benn was helped back into the ring vs Mclellen by the press row. In both cases the evidence to the contrary is relatively easily available but it makes no difference

As far as Holyfield goes, as mentioned I was too young, but in my view it's more likely the Boxing news writer made a mistake or had misinformation than the bookies actually offering 25/1 on a fight of that nature, it just wouldn't make sense. You have to be careful with reported odds for fights. I've noticed that Sky often quote slightly longer odds than what's actually available after they do the tale of the tape before the first bell.

Oliverfennell has covered this, but Holyfield was one gigantic mother of an underdog versus Tyson in 1996.

Holyfield had endured a lacklustre previous 12 months, starting with the knockout defeat to Riddick Bowe in late 1995 & a laboured win over fat super middleweight Bobby Czyz in early 1996.

Holyfield just did not look ready to face the supposedly resurgent Tyson & many thought he was in serious danger, as he looked shot to pieces.

[Andypittcov]

JC

Holyfield was 25/1 Tyson was 33/1 ON I remember because i bet on it.

Douglas was 42/1 Tyson was 50/1 ON I remember because I bet on it.

Also sky don't offer up phantom odds they put up the best available odds or skybet odds,both of which you wouldn't see in a bookies you'd need the racing post for or you'd need to go through every bookies on the net.