BoxRec

?

TYSON

BARNEYKX wrote:TYSON

Unbelievable, isn't it. My friend picked Douglas but he always picked against Tyson. I believe the books were closed on that fight because when odds get that high the event usually goes "off the boards".

Max Baer's situation was very similar in terms of odds.

I believe the whole 40-1 odds were taken from some random Japanese book-keeper at the time . . .but the actual Vegas odds were more like 20-1.

Yep, people will always "buy down" odds like that just with the "longshot" contributors alone.

More to the point, how many champs lost to a 42-1 underdog AND a 25-1 underdog in losing his titles?

People can rightly say Lewis's defeats to McCall and Rahman tarnish his legacy, but the odds for Lewis's losses were never that long.

If you count Tyson's later career defeats, he was also 14-1 on against Williams. Don't know the McBride line, but it was probably even longer.

You'll be hard pressed to find a top-level fighter with that many HUGE upset defeats on his record.

Odds should not have been that High for Tyson v Douglas. Douglas had beaten good fighters in the past. Douglas was a good athlete. He had beaten several top ten fighters in his prime including Macall, Mike Williams, Page. He held his own for most of the fight with Tucker, sure he should have been underdog but those odds are rediculous.

tyson its not a hard question

I sort of agree with Oliver, HOWEVER "Tysonmania" sort or ran rampant with the betting public. They saw him as a better investment than their own homes. So they began betting as if he was a sure thing.

Tyson fans are fanatics and not necessarily Boxing fans. I definitely didn't have Douglas, but made my share on Holyfield, Williams & McBride while just barely missing on Botha.

If he came back and fought Eddie Chambers in 4 months Tyson would still be a favorite. The books know what the heck they're doing. Just look how big a favorite Paul Williams is over Pavlik. They are going to make a mint when Kelly gets schooled.

Klee Gluckman wrote:Odds should not have been that High for Tyson v Douglas. Douglas had beaten good fighters in the past. Douglas was a good athlete. He had beaten several top ten fighters in his prime including Macall, Mike Williams, Page. He held his own for most of the fight with Tucker, sure he should have been underdog but those odds are rediculous.

Excellent post, and I agree 100%. Most people keep quoting these mythical 42-1 odds and make it sound like Douglas was Terry Daniels or Pierre Coopman. He was an accomplished, legitimate world ranked contender with excellent boxing skills. His downfall was lack of intensity and inconsistency. The only real shocking thing about his win over Tyson was how easy it looked.

The Great John L wrote:

Klee Gluckman wrote:Odds should not have been that High for Tyson v Douglas. Douglas had beaten good fighters in the past. Douglas was a good athlete. He had beaten several top ten fighters in his prime including Macall, Mike Williams, Page. He held his own for most of the fight with Tucker, sure he should have been underdog but those odds are rediculous.

Excellent post, and I agree 100%. Most people keep quoting these mythical 42-1 odds and make it sound like Douglas was Terry Daniels or Pierre Coopman. He was an accomplished, legitimate world ranked contender with excellent boxing skills. His downfall was lack of intensity and inconsistency. The only real shocking thing about his win over Tyson was how easy it looked.

Also, Tyson being 42-1 on isn't the same as Douglas being 42-1 against. Arbitrage, my friends!

Which Champ In His Prime Lost His Title Twice with a single shot ?

chiricahua wrote:Which Champ In His Prime Lost His Title Twice with a single shot ?

You might have to rephrase that, it's kind of difficult to understand.

Tyson, the better fighter. Lewis, the more accomplished career.

oliverfennell wrote:

chiricahua wrote:Which Champ In His Prime Lost His Title Twice with a single shot ?

You might have to rephrase that, it's kind of difficult to understand.

Ah, I get it. Meaning Lewis's title-losing knockouts were both from single right hands. I thought you mean lose a title from a punch, and then on some other technicality too.

OK, well I'll bite.

Maximum combined odds of Tyson's title defeats: 67-1
Lewis: 21-1

Furthermore:

Tyson's total avenged defeats: 0
Lewis: All

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Tyson, the better fighter. Lewis, the more accomplished career.

What basis is there for calling Tyson the better fighter?

My2Sense wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Tyson, the better fighter. Lewis, the more accomplished career.

What basis is there for calling Tyson the better fighter?

Natural, all round ability (early years predominantly).

My2Sense wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Tyson, the better fighter. Lewis, the more accomplished career.

What basis is there for calling Tyson the better fighter?

What can I say? He has always struck me as the more dynamic, well-rounded fighter of the two. His handspeed, his combination-punching, the power, good (not great) defense, solid chin, respectable endurance (again, early years) &, of course, the raw power & intimidation factor out-shine the comparatively-lumbering Lewis, who, to be fair, has plenty of great qualities, & a few areas where he convincingly out-strips Tyson.

Head-to-head, pomp-to-pomp (say, Tyson of '88 & Lewis around '99), I'd envision Tyson to be simply too fast in slipping the jab, & too powerful & precise in the delivery of a knockout blow to lose. It might be a different story if Lewis could take a punch like that. If he had the toughness of an Ali, or a Holmes even, perhaps he has the attributes (the sterling jab, the holding & leaning which were so effective, the disciplined gameplan) to win --- but I just can't see him being fast enough to avoid being hit, & once he is hit, he's gonna stay that way...lights out.

Feel free to disagree, but you asked for my take.

oliverfennell wrote:

chiricahua wrote:Which Champ In His Prime Lost His Title Twice with a single shot ?

You might have to rephrase that, it's kind of difficult to understand.

The answer is Lennox Lewis,hey, he avenged 2 defeats in his prime against pathetic B-fighters that he shouldn't have lost,congratulations.He is so great!!!
That's ok if you lose against bums or B-fighters,you just need to win a rematch and you become a great fighter.
How many times Joe Frazier,Ali or Joe Louis in their prime lost against B fighters? Let me repeat again with a single shot.
There is a new rule made by Lennox fans to excuse his inconsistency and legitimate his place among all time greats,sorry, he is the best of all time.
Then he ran from a rematch against Vitali,cos the risks were high.Yeah Lennox had a great heart.
Tyson's total avenged defeats: 0 Douglas refused a rematch cos he would lose
Lewis: All against B-fighters, Maskaev destroyed Rahman twice maybe we should include him among the all time greats too.
It is amazing to avenge defeats against B-fighters,amazing!!!!!
Furthermore:how many times Lennox won a fight after being floored ?=0
When he had a chance to show his greatness against Vitali in a rematch,he ran,we should call him chicken Lennox.
Before the fight against Vitali, he said that K brothers were chickens,one for breakfast,another for lunch.
He forgot to take his lunch.
Lennox was vulnerable to right hands like Holmes,but Holmes had a chin,that's the difference.

chiricahua wrote:

oliverfennell wrote:

chiricahua wrote:Which Champ In His Prime Lost His Title Twice with a single shot ?

You might have to rephrase that, it's kind of difficult to understand.

The answer is Lennox Lewis,hey, he avenged 2 defeats in his prime against pathetic B-fighters that he shouldn't have lost,congratulations.He is so great!!!
That's ok if you lose against bums or B-fighters,you just need to win a rematch and you become a great fighter.
How many times Joe Frazier,Ali or Joe Louis in their prime lost against B fighters? Let me repeat again with a single shot.
There is a new rule made by Lennox fans to excuse his inconsistency and legitimate his place among all time greats,sorry, he is the best of all time.
Then he ran from a rematch against Vitali,cos the risks were high.Yeah Lennox had a great heart.
Tyson's total avenged defeats: 0 Douglas refused a rematch cos he would lose
Lewis: All against B-fighters, Maskaev destroyed Rahman twice maybe we should include him among the all time greats too.
It is amazing to avenge defeats against B-fighters,amazing!!!!!
Furthermore:how many times Lennox won a fight after being floored ?=0
When he had a chance to show his greatness against Vitali in a rematch,he ran,we should call him chicken Lennox.
Before the fight against Vitali, he said that K brothers were chickens,one for breakfast,another for lunch.
He forgot to take his lunch.
Lennox was vulnerable to right hands like Holmes,but Holmes had a chin,that's the difference.

A little worked up over this, are we?

LMAO, you Tyson fanatics are hilarious. Incredible that you would bring up how many times Lewis climbed off of the deck to win. That's a real good argument for your side.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:LMAO, you Tyson fanatics are hilarious. Incredible that you would bring up how many times Lewis climbed off of the deck to win. That's a real good argument for your side.

Not to mention the sarcastic line about avenging defeats to guys you should've beaten as being all you need to be great...ummm, more than Tyson ever did when he was bested

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:LMAO, you Tyson fanatics are hilarious. Incredible that you would bring up how many times Lewis climbed off of the deck to win. That's a real good argument for your side.

I'm not a Tyson fan,but holyfield maniacs like you are brainless.
You keep bringing arguments about a style that you are unable to understand.
It seems now you hate everything related to Tyson even Jack Dempsey is a joke now,just cos he could bob& weave better than Frazier.
I'm still LMFAO about Holyfield in number 4 in your top 10 list of all time.

Not to mention the sarcastic line about avenging defeats to guys you should've beaten as being all you need to be great...ummm, more than Tyson ever did when he was bested

It is difficult to avenge a defeat when a b fighter refuses a rematch.
I didn't knew Holyfield was a B fighter.Good to know mate.