BoxRec

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.

The last two defeats could be excused as they came at the very end of his career, but even the likes of Ali and Leonard, to give two examples of similarly ignominous career finishes, didn't lose to such enormous long shots.

People continue to talk about Tyson as an ATG, some even contending that he may have been the best of all, but I can't think of any "great" boxer for whom five of his six defeats (83 percent) came against underdogs, and four of them against enormous underdogs.

It has to count against him. I mean, people say Lewis' legacy is harmed by his defeats to Rahman and McCall, but they weren't nearly as big upsets as Tyson's were - not to mention Lewis avenged them both.

oliverfennell wrote: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.

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

No, Sir.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:You're asking me to take into account for a fighter's legacy betting lines!?

No, Sir.

No doubt, and if I did Tyson wouldn't be close to the #1 spot.

Tyson was a great fighter just not as great as he was, and is, perceived to be by many. The betting odds actually prove that people invested a faith in him that was unwarranted.

I wasn't implying that tyson isn't overrated, he is. But the general public loses money gambling on every sport. It isn't an indicator of anything pertinent.

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

I bet on Holyfield & McBride going in and I made several small bets on Williams after the first round. Douglas I couldn't have bet if I wanted to, and I wouldn't have anyway. I bet on Tyson against Lewis.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I bet on Holyfield & McBride going in and I made several small bets on Williams after the first round. Douglas I couldn't have bet if I wanted to, and I wouldn't have anyway. I bet on Tyson against Lewis.

I'm quite surprised by that last one.

I had only just turned 18 when Lewis & Tyson fought (though I'd already followed the sport since the age of 10), but there was no way I thought for even a minute Tyson stood a chance.

You didn't completely expect Lewis to pole-axe him? I was only wondering whether or not that fight would prove to be Tyson's retirement beating.

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

Apparently, there were plenty. The betting lines, if I recall correctly, shrank from 25-1 down to 6-1 after the pair's weigh-in.

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.

BarryWashington wrote: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.

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

Crease wrote:

BarryWashington wrote: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.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I bet on Holyfield & McBride going in and I made several small bets on Williams after the first round. Douglas I couldn't have bet if I wanted to, and I wouldn't have anyway. I bet on Tyson against Lewis.

I'm quite surprised by that last one.

I had only just turned 18 when Lewis & Tyson fought (though I'd already followed the sport since the age of 10), but there was no way I thought for even a minute Tyson stood a chance.

You didn't completely expect Lewis to pole-axe him? I was only wondering whether or not that fight would prove to be Tyson's retirement beating.

I thought Lennox was frightened going into the fight and he honestly looked it for a round and a half. Then the ref threatened to penalize him for holding and it clicked, like why am I bothering to hold this midget and the beating was on. It was just $50 or so.

I had Holyfield at 3/1. I live on the East coast and that was before on-line gambling. Most bookies wont even look at Boxing and they certainly wont give you 25/1, never. So a lot of the people that bet on Evander probably are like the 350,000 that attended a sporting event with 30,000 people in attendance.

Sonny Liston was upset by underdog Cassius Clay
and at the tail end of his career knocked out by Leotis Martin a tough journeyman. Not sure of the odds, but both were upsets at the time.

Roy Jones has lost to lots of underdogs by now probably

I know Johnson was the underdog when he knocked out Jones
maybe Danny Green was too
Tarver was probably a slight underdog after the first fight, but I'm sure the odds were close.

I guess Tyson's losses to underdogs are more commonplace, and I doubt Jones will catch up as he will likely not be seen as the favorite again in a fight anytime soon unless he's fighting a guy making his debut or something.

I'm sure SRR lost to more underdogs than anyone mentioned in here by a landslide. Maybe more than the rest combined. That should be a perfect example of how silly the question is as any sort of barometer.

Terry Norris?

Tyson:
Douglas, Holyfield I, Williams and McBridge = 4 underdogs

RJJ:
Griffin I, Tarver II, Johnson and Green (Green was a big underdog, even by Australian bookies) = 4 underdogs

Sugar Ray Robinson probably lost to more underdogs than these two put together, but it's very hard to say with a lot of his fights. He had already beaten LaMotta, but weighed in more than two (modern) weight divisions lighter than him for their second fight. Against Joey Maxim he was fighting a LHW while weighing 157lb himself. Some of his later losses came against fighters he had a 1-1 record against after winning the second fight.

jezzamundo wrote:Tyson:
Douglas, Holyfield I, Williams and McBridge = 4 underdogs

RJJ:
Griffin I, Tarver II, Johnson and Green (Green was a big underdog, even by Australian bookies) = 4 underdogs

Sugar Ray Robinson probably lost to more underdogs than these two put together, but it's very hard to say with a lot of his fights. He had already beaten LaMotta, but weighed in more than two (modern) weight divisions lighter than him for their second fight. Against Joey Maxim he was fighting a LHW while weighing 157lb himself. Some of his later losses came against fighters he had a 1-1 record against after winning the second fight.

Wasn't Holyfield a small betting underdog against Tyson in their rematch, too?

Yes

Were any of the fighters who beat Sonny Liston favored to beforehand?

He of course was a big favorite against Ali (Clay) the first time. 7-1 is what is usually reported. Bwelieve Liston was an 8-5 favoriite in the rematch. Pretty sure he was the favoirte against Leotis Martin, though probably not a huge favorite by then. Not sure about Marty Marshall, that was early in his career.

As for Tyson, his defeats to McBride and Williams should be much of a factor when rating him. His name was why he was the betting favorite. If he was anywhere near his best, he would have beaten either handily.
Was he an ATG? Guess that depends on what you consider an ATG to be. He wasn't as good as Holyfield and Lewis, but he was one of the top 15 heavyweights of all time, arguably even top 10.

I believe that in his prime, The great Mike Tyson was better than Lennox Lewis. He cleaned up the whole heavyweight division by the year 1988. Nuff said.

elmersalsa wrote:I believe that in his prime, The great Mike Tyson was better than Lennox Lewis. He cleaned up the whole heavyweight division by the year 1988. Nuff said.

Indeed.

The fight that hapened between them at the start of the decade was a complete non-event! Tyson could not be compared to what he was in the late 80s.

The young hungry Tyson would hurt Lewis in the ring.