BoxRec

I've heard from a few sources that Buster was a 42-1 underdog versus his fight with Tyson. Did anyone bet on him and scored a jackpot? Or heard of anyone betting on him that made some crazy amount of cash?

I'm sure there were some people who put something like $10-$20 down just based on the odds. Like Barrett was +1700 for the Tua fight and I thought about it very hard but never pulled the trigger on it. It ended up as a draw and I would have been livid if Barrett won. But more then $20 and that person is lying.

Most Casino's didn't even offer it. It may have only been one, nobody had 42-1 from a private bookie.

Oh, absolutely, I made a fortune on both Douglas over Tyson AND Leon Spinks over Muhammad Ali in their first fight. My granddad picked up the big bucks with Jimmy Braddock over Max Baer, and his daddy won big on Corbett over Sullivan . . . Our innate ability to pick the winners is what made us a family of millionaires . . .

In all seriousness, the only big upset I've ever picked was Michael Spinks over Larry Holmes in their first fight. I don't gamble, but I would have won big that night.

Yes, I've heard that the 42-1 odds were just speculative odds put out by someone in Tokyo. In any case, the wide majority of bookies did not even have odds on this fight.

I won money on Holyfield over Tyson. I had been predicting that since the 80's. If they would have fought in the 90 or 91 range I would have won a lot more. By 96 I had trrepidation going in but I stuck to my guns.

I'm pretty sure there was an interview of a guy from Douglas' hometown --- in Ohio --- who did in fact gamble on him & win.

I did bet on Spinks though.... and shot my mouth off and how he would win DD

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I won money on Holyfield over Tyson. I had been predicting that since the 80's. If they would have fought in the 90 or 91 range I would have won a lot more. By 96 I had trrepidation going in but I stuck to my guns.

I honestly thought Holyfield was finished and had no chance. I considered him, at that point in his career, to have been a hype job (just like Spinks had become going into the Tyson fight). It p155ed me off because Evander was naturally smaller and was washed up and I braced myself for a deluge of "Tyson greatest ever" headlines.

When I read people now telling em that wasn't "prime" Tyson it makes me laugh. Holyfield had nothing going in and deserves every plaudit going for that win and his career. Great pick, Saad.

Yes

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I won money on Holyfield over Tyson. I had been predicting that since the 80's. If they would have fought in the 90 or 91 range I would have won a lot more. By 96 I had trrepidation going in but I stuck to my guns.

I, too, won money on Holyfield. I'd always said the his superior boxing skills, great chin and reluctance to go on the back foot for Tyson's one dimensional, come forward style would make him the victor every time they met.
I did, however lose dosh on Tyson-Bruno II, I new I had done my dough when I saw the shear terror on Bruno's face as he walked out to the ring.

I had good luck betting against Mike. Took Danny Williams and McBride. My losses were Lennox(oddly) & botha.

BarryWashington wrote:

dberry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I won money on Holyfield over Tyson. I had been predicting that since the 80's. If they would have fought in the 90 or 91 range I would have won a lot more. By 96 I had trrepidation going in but I stuck to my guns.

I, too, won money on Holyfield. I'd always said the his superior boxing skills, great chin and reluctance to go on the back foot for Tyson's one dimensional, come forward style would make him the victor every time they met.
I did, however lose dosh on Tyson-Bruno II, I new I had done my dough when I saw the shear terror on Bruno's face as he walked out to the ring.

I'm in the minor that believes a prime version of Tyson would get rid of a prime Holyfield. The only thing Holyfield would have in his favor is if the referee doesn't stop the fight & Mike starts to mentally break-down. I really believe the fight would end in Mike TKO-ing Holyfield. I wish it would have happened because if (I was alive at the time) I would have bet my house on it; and this is coming from a huge Holyfield fan (not that it matters, just felt like throwing it in).

I couldn't imagine Tyson ever beating Holyfield, not once out of 100.

I actually side with Tyson in that fight, too. People get way, way too hung-up on the, "Holyfield always had Tyson's number" cliche.

Maybe so, but Mike was a member of that camp. Not believing in yourself is a tough pill in this sport.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Maybe so, but Mike was a member of that camp. Not believing in yourself is a tough pill in this sport.

Admittedly, I have heard Tyson speak of Holyfield with a respect bordering on deference. However, I can't help feel Tyson's greatest strengths play right to Holyfield's biggest weaknesses, granting him a very good shot at victory. Odss-on in fact, if he believes he can do it.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Maybe so, but Mike was a member of that camp. Not believing in yourself is a tough pill in this sport.

Admittedly, I have heard Tyson speak of Holyfield with a respect bordering on deference. However, I can't help feel Tyson's greatest strengths play right to Holyfield's biggest weaknesses, granting him a very good shot at victory. Odss-on in fact, if he believes he can do it.

I don't get that, Tyson strength was never in exchanging. It was running through people. He would never be comfortable backing up and Evander was the stronger man. I think Holyfield's strength's all play into Tyson's weaknesses and yeah Mike has said on more than once that he doesn't feel he ever would have beat Evander. Don king didn't think he could either.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I actually side with Tyson in that fight, too. People get way, way too hung-up on the, "Holyfield always had Tyson's number" cliche.

Holyfield did always have Tyson's measure, bad use of the term cliche I wish my keyboard could put the accent above the e.

I remember quoted odds of as much as 25-1 against Holyfield in the first Tyson fight. Crazy to think now, isn't it! But it certainly was viewed as a mismatch at the time. Tyson was almost at late-80s-like levels of respect at the time (with hindsight, that was wrong, but it was the view, especially as he appeared to have his intimidation factor back with how the Bruno and Seldon fights went), while Holyfield was already thought to be in decline, coming off a problem with his heart and struggling with Bobby Czyz, of all people. On top of that, he didn't look to have the punch to trouble Tyson, nor the chin to withstand his attacks.

What we would find out in this fight, though - and which Douglas had already shown, and which Williams and even McBride would later show - is that having a stronger mental resolve than Tyson was more important than having a greater punch or chin than him.

oliverfennell wrote:I remember quoted odds of as much as 25-1 against Holyfield in the first Tyson fight. Crazy to think now, isn't it! But it certainly was viewed as a mismatch at the time. Tyson was almost at late-80s-like levels of respect at the time (with hindsight, that was wrong, but it was the view, especially as he appeared to have his intimidation factor back with how the Bruno and Seldon fights went), while Holyfield was already thought to be in decline, coming off a problem with his heart and struggling with Bobby Czyz, of all people. On top of that, he didn't look to have the punch to trouble Tyson, nor the chin to withstand his attacks.

What we would find out in this fight, though - and which Douglas had already shown, and which Williams and even McBride would later show - is that having a stronger mental resolve than Tyson was more important than having a greater punch or chin than him.

Not stepping back into Tyson's punch was always one of the secrets to beating him, standing ground or coming forward on him would have taken some resolve.

oliverfennell wrote:I remember quoted odds of as much as 25-1 against Holyfield in the first Tyson fight. Crazy to think now, isn't it! But it certainly was viewed as a mismatch at the time. Tyson was almost at late-80s-like levels of respect at the time (with hindsight, that was wrong, but it was the view, especially as he appeared to have his intimidation factor back with how the Bruno and Seldon fights went), while Holyfield was already thought to be in decline, coming off a problem with his heart and struggling with Bobby Czyz, of all people. On top of that, he didn't look to have the punch to trouble Tyson, nor the chin to withstand his attacks.

What we would find out in this fight, though - and which Douglas had already shown, and which Williams and even McBride would later show - is that having a stronger mental resolve than Tyson was more important than having a greater punch or chin than him.

Funnily enough, the 25-1 dropped way down to 6-1 after the weigh-in.

Strange, huh?

I remember reading an article by a journalist watching Holyfield spar before the 1st Tyson fight, emphasising his (to the journo's mind) bizarre strategy of fighting in v short bursts coming forward and then holding which, to the correspondents mind seemed suicidal. However, it worked on the night, Tyson knew that he didn't have an answer after 6 rounds or so and it became v one sided.

raylawpc wrote:I made a fortune on both Douglas over Tyson AND Leon Spinks over Muhammad Ali in their first fight.

Both of them fights were impossible to predict.

And wasn't Marciano a heavy underdog against Walcott?

Crease wrote:

raylawpc wrote:I made a fortune on both Douglas over Tyson AND Leon Spinks over Muhammad Ali in their first fight.

Both of them fights were impossible to predict.

And wasn't Marciano a heavy underdog against Walcott?

Walcott was underdog both times.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Walcott was underdog both times.

I''m not too sure about that GI, I remember reading that the press thought that Marciano was too slow and clumsy to trouble the skilled champion that Walcott was.