Good day. Happy New Year to everyone I wish!
All of us remember many disputes (all over the world) on Tyson and Lewis's theme who from them is greater or more legendary, and many other things. At present it is represented to me interesting to discuss "face to face" Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, to discuss them not from the point of view of statistics and figures, titles, belts, comparison of opposition or records. To me interestingly what they were as boxers, are how much good or bad, than are good and than are not so good.
As to Mike in its best years, I saw in him very good aggressive “shorty” counterpuncher. With fine technics and skills, feeling of a distance and a rhythm in actions, fine feeling of the opponent. His technics and skills were almost ideally combined with his natural parametres. Then in due course Mike became easier, also more predicted, but on any very long remained terrible force.
Holyfield in cruiserweight and times of heavyweight differed a little. Despite the universality and brilliant skills being cruiser he didn’t hesitate to impose to contenders rate and without ceremony could break them physically, many times taking fight inside. Passing in heavyweight to him it was necessary to calm the passion though, but all the same there was an aspiration to combat "a bone in a bone" a little if it is most favourably for him.
They in a ring met twice, and both times the victory remained beyond Evander. The fact is also that in the second fight they have a little held back each other. I saw their career of professional boxers from beginning to end, and I dare to assert that in their fight in any years, taking into account their styles, merits and demerits, Evander it would appear more strongly and beat Mike any time, any place, anywhere.
What opinions are?

Evander would have Beat Tyson in his prime, He knew how to Beat Mike, And when people say that Tyson wasnt the same, Well Evander wasnt in his prime either, but he still could handle Tyson, Tyson was a great fighter, if the other guy was nervous or scared, But Evander had his number, Prime and No Prime

i love tyson to death but he was just a strong puncher, holyfield was much more

evander easily


he beat tysons ass twice, and would have doen the same to tyson in his prime

he had his number and wasnt afraid of him

Tyson wasn't fit to carry Evander's jock.

not even close the real deal

Hallo, everybody.
What about fight between them in 1989 (that was quite real than cause of rattings)?
Evander weighted then average about 92-93 kg, was very sharp and workrated. Mike's shape was very doubtful than because of divorce with Givens and dismissals of Runi.

ima go different and say Mike, because when he fought Evander, he was Crazy and all that. ahah but mike in 89 would have won. But overall Career wise, The Real Deal had a better Career, but Mike has the better legacy. Only if Mike had his heart into boxing, he could have done bigger and better things.

holyfield must hav set an all time record for headbutts landed in a fight.

holyfield must hav set an all time record for headbutts landed in a fight.

Waa waa waa :bottle: That's the same weak excuse Tyson's KoolAid drinkers have been using for years. Of course in making that claim they forget Tyson was about the dirtiest fighter going with his low blows, hitting on the break, hitting after the bell, hitting with forearms, not to mention trying to break an opponent's arm. Pot kettle black: If you're going to cry foul make sure you do it for cleaner fighter than Tyson.

Poet

No dout Evander will be remembered as the better fighter, and when they fought Evander beat him fair and sqaure. Would of been alot more interesting in their legit primes do.

Good day. Happy New Year to everyone I wish!
All of us remember many disputes (all over the world) on Tyson and Lewis's theme who from them is greater or more legendary, and many other things. At present it is represented to me interesting to discuss "face to face" Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, to discuss them not from the point of view of statistics and figures, titles, belts, comparison of opposition or records. To me interestingly what they were as boxers, are how much good or bad, than are good and than are not so good.
As to Mike in its best years, I saw in him very good aggressive “shorty” counterpuncher. With fine technics and skills, feeling of a distance and a rhythm in actions, fine feeling of the opponent. His technics and skills were almost ideally combined with his natural parametres. Then in due course Mike became easier, also more predicted, but on any very long remained terrible force.
Holyfield in cruiserweight and times of heavyweight differed a little. Despite the universality and brilliant skills being cruiser he didn’t hesitate to impose to contenders rate and without ceremony could break them physically, many times taking fight inside. Passing in heavyweight to him it was necessary to calm the passion though, but all the same there was an aspiration to combat "a bone in a bone" a little if it is most favourably for him.
They in a ring met twice, and both times the victory remained beyond Evander. The fact is also that in the second fight they have a little held back each other. I saw their career of professional boxers from beginning to end, and I dare to assert that in their fight in any years, taking into account their styles, merits and demerits, Evander it would appear more strongly and beat Mike any time, any place, anywhere.
What opinions are?

No contest. Evander beat him twice and beat much better competition(Bowe, Douglas, Foreman).

Tyson was the better fighter at his peak. Evander is the better fighter overall when comparing careers.

i love tyson to death but he was just a strong puncher, holyfield was much more
You know nothing about boxing. Saying Tyson in his prime was just a strong boxer is idiotic. He could cut the ring, he could slip and combo up his punches.

Anyway, I personally believe Prime Tyson is better than Holyfield. To me Holyfield is a cheat who will do anything to come out victorious. ( Probably bias).

You know nothing about boxing. Saying Tyson in his prime was just a strong boxer is idiotic. He could cut the ring, he could slip and combo up his punches.

Anyway, I personally believe Prime Tyson is better than Holyfield. To me Holyfield is a cheat who will do anything to come out victorious. ( Probably bias).

Probably Bias? :haha:

Poet

You know nothing about boxing. Saying Tyson in his prime was just a strong boxer is idiotic. He could cut the ring, he could slip and combo up his punches.

Anyway, I personally believe Prime Tyson is better than Holyfield. To me Holyfield is a cheat who will do anything to come out victorious. ( Probably bias).

Think about that. Using your logic then:

A. Duran was a cheat who would do anything to come out victorious (thumbing, lacing eyes ect.)

B. Bowe was a cheat who would do anything to come out victorious
(rabbit punching)

C. Lewis was a cheat who would do anything to come out victorious
(holding opponents heads down and throwing the uppercut)

D. Ali was a cheat who would do anything to come out victorious
(holding opponents heads down)

And last but certainly not least:

E. Tyson was a cheat who would do anything to come out victorious
(trying to break opponents arms, hitting with elbows and forearms ect.)

But no doubt you give Tyson a pass for dirty tactics because HE did it it just meant he was BAAAAAD and not a cheat.

Poet

Had they fought when they 1st shoulda in 1990, I think Mike wins. But he was still a decent percentage of his old self when a semi faded Holy rejuvenated and KO'd him. And overall, Holy had the better career, although he's now badly faded and losin to guys he shouldn't be just like Mike did towards the end. I like Tyson more, but Holy's proven himself as the better fighter.

In Mike's prime he was bobbing back and forth and closing distance easily. Not to mention he used devastating body blows to set up power shots to the head and was much better defensively. After doing time for rape, he clearly showed diminished skills in all the above-mentioned areas and against Evander he was a shell of what he was. I have to go with Tyson if we re talking PRIME...I just feel he would have cut Evander down.

Saying Tyson in his prime was just a strong boxer is idiotic.

Okay, he was strong boxer with great handspeed.

And that's all.

I think the defense you speak of was vastly overrated. He looked good slipping punches from opposition that could barely throw punches. And he lost even that ability when Rooney was no longer around to drill it into his fat head. Where was his defense when the lowly Buster Douglas annihilated him? Or Evander? Or Lewis? Or Williams? Or McBride? And I don't buy that **** about him having a 2-year prime. How the hell could he a shot fighter at 23 or 24 years of age? Lennox Lewis was still kicking ass into his mid thirties.

That said, I have Tyson 3nd on my list of heavyweight power punchers, behind Marciano and Foreman and just ahead of Liston and Frazier and Shavers and Tua. (although I'm tempted to put Liston ahead of him) Tyson had the potential to be more with that freakish handspeed but his mental fragility/stupidity did him in.

At this moment:

Holyfield 25
Tyson 10
no choyce 1

I get really frustrated with Tyson fans, because they give Tyson the benefit of the doubt that no other fighter in the history of boxing gets. The Buster Douglas loss is discounted because Tyson had fired Rooney before the fight, and therefore wasn't in his prime since Rooney or D'Amato weren't training him. Have you ever heard of any other fighter being afforded that type of excuse? He wasn't in his prime anymore because he fired his coach?

You guys can tell where I'm going with this... I consider Buster Douglas to have beaten a prime Tyson. Buster Douglas beat him by standing in the center of the ring and fighting with him, not being bullied. Holyfield would have done the exact same thing, he would have taken Tyson to war and fought him. If Douglas could do it, Holyfield could do it.

I know the arguments are going to come that it wasn't a prime Tyson who fought Douglas, I don't buy it.

I get really frustrated with Tyson fans, because they give Tyson the benefit of the doubt that no other fighter in the history of boxing gets. The Buster Douglas loss is discounted because Tyson had fired Rooney before the fight, and therefore wasn't in his prime since Rooney or D'Amato weren't training him. Have you ever heard of any other fighter being afforded that type of excuse? He wasn't in his prime anymore because he fired his coach?

You guys can tell where I'm going with this... I consider Buster Douglas to have beaten a prime Tyson. Buster Douglas beat him by standing in the center of the ring and fighting with him, not being bullied. Holyfield would have done the exact same thing, he would have taken Tyson to war and fought him. If Douglas could do it, Holyfield could do it.

I know the arguments are going to come that it wasn't a prime Tyson who fought Douglas, I don't buy it.

He was prime, but he just wasn't prime shape neither physically or mentally. Just watch the fight again, even the announcers noticed it before the fight even started. They said "this doesn't look like the usual menacing Tyson" right before they rang the bell. Mike was not in boxing shape, it was said he was busy going out banging Japanese girls. He also had an incompetent corner, they didn't even have an enswell to keep his eye open and instead used a condom filled with ice water, which is ridiculous. Regardless of this, had that fight gone down today, Tyson would have won, seeing how the refs today would have jumped in to stop the fight when Buster was still on the mat at the count of 9. It probably would have went down as one of Mike's best victories. In any case, Tony Tucker(who beat Buster) was a better fighter than Douglas, Mike beat him, and I definitely think Mike would have beat Buster by late TKO had he fought in shape and with Rooney or atleast a competent team.

When people say his prime ended with Rooney, they say that because his skills went with him, his jab and combinations were gone after that. He was just a brawler at that point. Its funny because at the time he fired Rooney I always felt he should have gone with Eddie Futch who I thought would understand his style best, and it wouldn't be until Mike linked up with Futch's protege Freddie Roach that we would see the head movement, jab, combos, etc come back. Unfortunately Mike was too old and doped out at that point.

Okay, he was strong boxer with great handspeed.

And that's all.

I think the defense you speak of was vastly overrated. He looked good slipping punches from opposition that could barely throw punches. And he lost even that ability when Rooney was no longer around to drill it into his fat head. Where was his defense when the lowly Buster Douglas annihilated him? Or Evander? Or Lewis? Or Williams? Or McBride? And I don't buy that **** about him having a 2-year prime. How the hell could he a shot fighter at 23 or 24 years of age? Lennox Lewis was still kicking ass into his mid thirties.

That said, I have Tyson 3nd on my list of heavyweight power punchers, behind Marciano and Foreman and just ahead of Liston and Frazier and Shavers and Tua. (although I'm tempted to put Liston ahead of him) Tyson had the potential to be more with that freakish handspeed but his mental fragility/stupidity did him in.

I'm sorry but this is truly a terrible post. To even think of using Lewis, Williams and McBride as examples is idiotic. Do people use Berbick or Holmes as reason to why Ali was a poor boxer? is Louis discredited as he lost to Marciano? Even Holyfield today look at the people he is losing to, but they will never be brought up when discussing his greatness!.
And another note, you have Marciano and Tyson ahead of Liston and Shavers on a POWER punching list!! that is just hilarious!

I would just like to make a side note for the general topic. Tyson was different to a lot of fighters in his mental state. He needed someone to keep him on the rails at first this was Cus then Jacobs and to some extent Rooney. Without these people around Tyson wasn't the same person and so wasn't the same boxer, the loss of trainers/managers effected Tyson more than any other boxer. There are some boxers who we associated with certain trainers and without them may of not became a success, Tyson is definitely one of these.

prime v prime.

Tyson

I'm sorry but this is truly a terrible post. To even think of using Lewis, Williams and McBride as examples is idiotic. Do people use Berbick or Holmes as reason to why Ali was a poor boxer? is Louis discredited as he lost to Marciano? Even Holyfield today look at the people he is losing to, but they will never be brought up when discussing his greatness!.
And another note, you have Marciano and Tyson ahead of Liston and Shavers on a POWER punching list!! that is just hilarious!



I'm sorry but THIS post is terrible. Why is it idiotic to use Lewis as an example of why Tyson sucks? Lewis was OLDER THAN TYSON when they stepped into the ring. Tyson's fights with Evander and Lewis were carbon copies of his loss to Douglas, proving he was a moron incapable of learning anything from his previous fights.

And in terms of successful power punchers, I don't have a problem rating Marciano and Tyson tops. Marciano was an undefeated champ who many consider the pound for pound hardest puncher ever, and Tyson (as much as I loathe him) cleaned out one of the most useless heavyweight divisions ever.

I'm sorry but THIS post is terrible. Why is it idiotic to use Lewis as an example of why Tyson sucks? Lewis was OLDER THAN TYSON when they stepped into the ring. Tyson's fights with Evander and Lewis were carbon copies of his loss to Douglas, proving he was a moron incapable of learning anything from his previous fights.

And in terms of successful power punchers, I don't have a problem rating Marciano and Tyson tops. Marciano was an undefeated champ who many consider the pound for pound hardest puncher ever, and Tyson (as much as I loathe him) cleaned out one of the most useless heavyweight divisions ever.

Age doesn't matter in terms of prime. If you look at the fighters of the past with similar style to Tyson such as Frazier, Marciano, and Dempsey, they were all considered past their best around the age 30-32. Add on his 3 year prison stint and that cuts off even more years off his prime. Tyson had a young man's style that wasn't meant to go late into his 30's. Lewis on the other hand was a big heavyweight who could make up for his dwindling athleticism and stamina with his size, Mike didn't have that luxury(plus he was doing drugs which no doubt took some years out of his body as well).

I'm sorry but this is truly a terrible post. To even think of using Lewis, Williams and McBride as examples is idiotic. Do people use Berbick or Holmes as reason to why Ali was a poor boxer? is Louis discredited as he lost to Marciano? Even Holyfield today look at the people he is losing to, but they will never be brought up when discussing his greatness!.
And another note, you have Marciano and Tyson ahead of Liston and Shavers on a POWER punching list!! that is just hilarious!



I think you misunderstood the post. I ranked the power punches on what they accomplished, not how hard they hit.

And I stand by my decision to use Tyson's opponents as examples of his worth. You Tyson nuthuggers make me laugh, trying to justify away why your man took such a beating from both good and mediocre opposition alike. The man was a big fish in a small pond, and when he entered the lake he got devoured by bigger fish. Simple as that.

Did he live up to his potential? Admittedly not. He could've had a better record if he took care of himself between fights, but potential means jack **** in this world. I believe a champion should be held accountable for his losses whenever they occured, and that he should be judged on the quality of his fights. That's why Marciano is my favorite fighter. He beat everybody he faced (HOFs like Louis, Moore, Walcott, Charles), never lost a fight, and had the brains to retire on top. And if Tyson had a 2-year prime, that sucks dude. That doesn't cut it. I believe Tyson was ducking guys like Lewis and Foreman for a reason back in the day, the reason being he knew they would expose him.

I think you misunderstood the post. I ranked the power punches on what they accomplished, not how hard they hit.

And I stand by my decision to use Tyson's opponents as examples of his worth. You Tyson nuthuggers make me laugh, trying to justify away why your man took such a beating from both good and mediocre opposition alike. The man was a big fish in a small pond, and when he entered the lake he got devoured by bigger fish. Simple as that.

Did he live up to his potential? Admittedly not. He could've had a better record if he took care of himself between fights, but potential means jack **** in this world. I believe a champion should be held accountable for his losses whenever they occured, and that he should be judged on the quality of his fights. That's why Marciano is my favorite fighter. He beat everybody he faced (HOFs like Louis, Moore, Walcott, Charles), never lost a fight, and had the brains to retire on top. And if Tyson had a 2-year prime, that sucks dude. That doesn't cut it. I believe Tyson was ducking guys like Lewis and Foreman for a reason back in the day, the reason being he knew they would expose him.

Okay. I'm going to jump in here for a moment. No one will EVER accuse me of being a Tyson nuthugger and in fact I'm a holy terror to Tyson KoolAid drinkers everywhere. That being said, Iron Man is NO Tyson nuthugger. He is a Tyson fan, yes, but nuthugger no. I've had very rational, very intelligent discussions about Tyson with Iron Man and he is thoughtful and rational in the points he makes. That's something NO Tyson nuthugger is capable of doing. While I agree that Tyson's idolatrous fans give him a bad name, please discern between the rational fans and the lunatic fan-boys.

Poet

hard to say, the Holyfield that fought Foreman was a beast though, in superb shape. Styles make fights, I think holy has Tysons number. Sure Tyson wasn't at his best, but either was Evander.

i'm going with Evander. I'd pick a Prime Evander over a Prime Lewis to.

hard to say, the Holyfield that fought Foreman was a beast though, in superb shape. Styles make fights, I think holy has Tysons number. Sure Tyson wasn't at his best, but either was Evander.

i'm going with Evander. I'd pick a Prime Evander over a Prime Lewis to.

Agreed.

Poet

I'm one of the biggest Tyson fans alive but i can say this...if a prime Tyson was in absolute perfect shape he would have about 6 rounds(maybe) to take care of a prime holyfield. After that, Commander Vander would cruise to a UD or eventually a KO. Tyson was a beast in his prime but Holyfield was something else...like a relentless terminator or something of that nature...he would just walk through everything you had and keep coming. sick nasty

Its funny to me how we all discuss things like, who would have won outta ali-marciano frazier-tyson dempsey-louis, yet holyfield-tyson did fight twice and some still wonder who was the best fighter! Although i understand the prime v prime question, even though some seem to forget holyfield like tyson was also way past his best.


Holyfield was imo the better fighter, thats why he beat him twice.

hard to say, the Holyfield that fought Foreman was a beast though, in superb shape. Styles make fights, I think holy has Tysons number. Sure Tyson wasn't at his best, but either was Evander.

i'm going with Evander. I'd pick a Prime Evander over a Prime Lewis to.


After what Lewis did to Holy:blackeye::blackeye:, you'd pick Holy over him?

After what Lewis did to Holy:blackeye::blackeye:, you'd pick Holy over him?

in 1999 holy was in no way shape or form in his prime, Lewis was.

Holyfield that fought Holmes, Foreman and Cooper? Easily Holyfield. He was quicker, had immense stamina and his legendary chin. I can't see how Lewis would beat him.

i might even pick a Prime Tyson to beat Lewis. Styles make fights and Lewis seemed to fight those guys right at the end.

in 1999 holy was in no way shape or form in his prime, Lewis was.

Holyfield that fought Holmes, Foreman and Cooper? Easily Holyfield. He was quicker, had immense stamina and his legendary chin. I can't see how Lewis would beat him.

i might even pick a Prime Tyson to beat Lewis. Styles make fights and Lewis seemed to fight those guys right at the end.

Lewis is only three years younger than Holyfield and was 34 by their second fight - no spring chicken either.

I disagree that an earlier version of Holyfield would beat Lewis "easily". Imo Lewis would be a hard fight for any version of Holyfield, who proved to be beatable throughout his career at heavyweight. Bowe beat him twice, Moorer beat him, and he struggled more with Foreman, Holmes and Cooper than he should have.

Personally, I would back a prime Tyson to beat both Holyfield and Lewis.

I was with you right up to the last line of your post.

Prime Lewis and Prime Evander ****ing feed it to 'prime' Tyson, whenever that prime was supposed to have been. If you happened to blink back in the late Eighties you might have missed it !

And Tyson was smarter than you guys, he knew Lewis (who was older than him but annihilated him anyways) would give him a beatdown. Why do you think he paid Lewis' camp millions back in the day so he could fight Seldon instead?

I was with you right up to the last line of your post.

Prime Lewis and Prime Evander ****ing feed it to 'prime' Tyson, whenever that prime was supposed to have been. If you happened to blink back in the late Eighties you might have missed it !

And Tyson was smarter than you guys, he knew Lewis (who was older than him but annihilated him anyways) would give him a beatdown. Why do you think he paid Lewis' camp millions back in the day so he could fight Seldon instead?

Holyfeild takes it prime for prime with Tyson. The Holyfield that fought Foreman would have atleast UD'ed him if not TKO'ed him.


Prime Tyson would have taken Lennox 2 out of 3 in my opinion. Someone that fast and hard hitting dosen't go well with Lennox's glass jaw.

Plate, the reality is, whether we like it or not, individual human psyches don't follow rules. You can't lay down general rules and then demand that every individual human life follow them. Tyson was a fragile child-like psyche that lost his only reason for fighting (His trainer, surrogate father and only parental figure, Cus D'amato). Sometimes in life potential just goes unfufilled because of circumstances, that is a fact. Now I totally understand you arguing against Tyson nuthuggers that represent that unfufilled potential as something that would have been able to overcome anyone if it had just been fufilled, but I think it is careless to just think that all the guy ever was was some big fellow that scared people and hit hard. Also, the argument from unfufilled promise is not just based on Wins and Losses. All you have to do is look at his fighting style, it is clearly not the same in his later fights. Infact, you can even see it in bouts like the Bruno fight where he was victorious.

OK Res, I respect what you said and I'll shut up now. Believe it or not, I was once a HUGE Tyson fan and still have a scrapbook containing clippings from almost all his early fights, up to about Botha.

He still ranks as the most exciting fighter of all time, I'll give you that

Holyfield all the way baby, just a more complete fighter.

Holyfield all the way baby, just a more complete fighter.


Is there any doubting this statement?

I mean really

Prime Tyson would have taken Lennox 2 out of 3 in my opinion. Someone that fast and hard hitting dosen't go well with Lennox's glass jaw.





Glass jaw my ass! that ****s dumb. Rahman nailed him with a shot that would just about KO anyone. MCcall also hit him with a good shot, but i thought it was premature to stop the fight. Guys like tyson bowe mercer holyfield tucker tested his chin! Get real.

Glass jaw my ass! that ****s dumb. Rahman nailed him with a shot that would just about KO anyone. MCcall also hit him with a good shot, but i thought it was premature to stop the fight. Guys like tyson bowe mercer holyfield tucker tested his chin! Get real.

Mike Tyson tested him? lol.


And are you talking about the 88' head gear wearing olympic bout with a smaller pre-prime Riddick Bowe?

He took a few shots from Mercer though, but he more often than not simply avoided by quickness or clinching what Mercer had to offer.

Mike Tyson tested him? lol.




He tried an failed.




And are you talking about the 88' head gear wearing olympic bout with a smaller pre-prime Riddick Bowe?



Obviously, unless you know of another time they fought?

Oh right Bowe was smaller, thats the excuse. So if chicken bowe had the bottle to get in the ring with him in the pros what would the excuse be then? Cuz lets be honest, regardless you'd have one.


He took a few shots from Mercer though, but he more often than not simply avoided by quickness or clinching what Mercer had to offer.


Well for a glass jawed bum like you seem to be making out he was, he certainly seemed to have a very good career.

I'm sorry but THIS post is terrible. Why is it idiotic to use Lewis as an example of why Tyson sucks? Lewis was OLDER THAN TYSON when they stepped into the ring. Tyson's fights with Evander and Lewis were carbon copies of his loss to Douglas, proving he was a moron incapable of learning anything from his previous fights.

And in terms of successful power punchers, I don't have a problem rating Marciano and Tyson tops. Marciano was an undefeated champ who many consider the pound for pound hardest puncher ever, and Tyson (as much as I loathe him) cleaned out one of the most useless heavyweight divisions ever.

Tyson was shot at that stage, Lewis was possibly in the best shape of his career. He was under the management of a brilliant trainer and had all the tools to take out a finished Tyson. That's why its ridiculous to use that as an example as to why Tyson "Sucked". Prime is different to age.


I think you misunderstood the post. I ranked the power punches on what they accomplished, not how hard they hit.

Ok for that i apologise, even though i still disagree with Marciano being top but that's your opinion.


And I stand by my decision to use Tyson's opponents as examples of his worth. You Tyson nuthuggers make me laugh, trying to justify away why your man took such a beating from both good and mediocre opposition alike. The man was a big fish in a small pond, and when he entered the lake he got devoured by bigger fish. Simple as that.

Ok firstly if you have seen any of my other posts in BS you would know i am not a Tyson "nuthugger" but simply a Tyson fan, i don't think his immortal or the greatest boxer/heavyweight.
I still don't see a good reason to use those opponents apart from Holyfield, he had Tysons number just like Foreman had Fraziers but Frazier is no worse because of losing to a great fighter, and neither is Tyson for losing to an even greater fighter. But the Lewis, McBride and Williams losses are totally different this was not Tyson at his best, anywhere near his best for that matter. Berbick is a mediocre opponent and Ali lost to him, you don't see people throwing that around and saying Ali "sucked" and rightfully so. Holmes lost to Nielsen and McCall these again are not used against him. I think its just foolish to use those losses against Tyson.

I'm sorry but THIS post is terrible. Why is it idiotic to use Lewis as an example of why Tyson sucks? Lewis was OLDER THAN TYSON when they stepped into the ring. Tyson's fights with Evander and Lewis were carbon copies of his loss to Douglas, proving he was a moron incapable of learning anything from his previous fights.


That makes no sense. Bernard Hopkins is four years older than Roy Jones but who is more shot? Tyson was 35-0 and undisputed heavyweight champion of the world before Lewis ever set foot in a pro ring. By the time they finally met Tyson's body had a lot more wear and tear than Lewis', including almost four years of being unable to hone his skills at all, which pretty much finished him as an elite fighter.

Going into the Holyfield fight, Tyson had had less than ten rounds of boxing in five years, all of them blowout wins against limited competition. During his comeback he was a shell of his former self, little more than a traveling freak show. Judge him by his prime. Nobody claims Ali was no good because he lost to Leon Spinks at age 36.

Tyson was shot at that stage, Lewis was possibly in the best shape of his career. He was under the management of a brilliant trainer and had all the tools to take out a finished Tyson. That's why its ridiculous to use that as an example as to why Tyson "Sucked". Prime is different to age.



Ok for that i apologise, even though i still disagree with Marciano being top but that's your opinion.



Ok firstly if you have seen any of my other posts in BS you would know i am not a Tyson "nuthugger" but simply a Tyson fan, i don't think his immortal or the greatest boxer/heavyweight.
I still don't see a good reason to use those opponents apart from Holyfield, he had Tysons number just like Foreman had Fraziers but Frazier is no worse because of losing to a great fighter, and neither is Tyson for losing to an even greater fighter. But the Lewis, McBride and Williams losses are totally different this was not Tyson at his best, anywhere near his best for that matter. Berbick is a mediocre opponent and Ali lost to him, you don't see people throwing that around and saying Ali "sucked" and rightfully so. Holmes lost to Nielsen and McCall these again are not used against him. I think its just foolish to use those losses against Tyson.

good post.

I have Tyson beating Lewis prime for prime, I think he would be to fast, the fact that Lewis would fight on the back foot and not smother him makes me think all the more why He'd lose. He wupped a washed up Tyson and caught him with shots a Prime Mike would have easily avoided or countered.

Prime Holyfield beats them both IMO. Not discrediting Lewis, he just came at a time when some really great heavyweights were winding down their Careers. He's still on the heavyweight ATG list though IMO.

Tyson was a vastly overrated fraud and mental defective, both prime Lewis and prime Evander woulda schooled him (just as they did as old men), even a mediocre fighter like Buster Douglas was able to make Tyson look horrible, ok ok Tyson had fast hands and a great punch, you guys are insane, I'm out for now, take care, ciao

tyson would have ko'd holyfield in his prime

Holyfield all the way baby, just a more complete fighter.


you got it baby

Tyson was a vastly overrated fraud and mental defective, both prime Lewis and prime Evander woulda schooled him (just as they did as old men), even a mediocre fighter like Buster Douglas was able to make Tyson look horrible, ok ok Tyson had fast hands and a great punch, you guys are insane, I'm out for now, take care, ciao

you are delusional, if he sucked that bad Spinks and Holmes would have crushed him.

If you are going to say Holmes was past it, then Ray Mercer must suck even more. Holyfield sucks too, for not being able to finnish Holmes. *sarcasm*

He belongs right up there in that trio, with Holyfield in his Prime being the best

The fact remains Evander and Lewis fought (and beat) a much higher level of competition.

Spinks was a great fighter but he tiny.. and scared stiff against Tyson in Atlantic City. It remains Tyson's most impressive victory.

I think boxing historians will concur with my view that Lewis was the greatest fighter of the triumvirate, followed by Evander. Your man will be bringing up the rear, and it is a position he earned by his lack of ring intelligence, lack of technical skill, and inability to take care of himself between fights.

A man's potential means nothing.. its what he does with what he has that counts.

Its funny how both those fighters "most impressive victory" was over Tyson, in one case an old Tyson and another a post prison Tyson with few fights under his belt. Who according to you lacked ring intelligence and technical skill. But somehow completed both of these guys legacies...beating a fighter out of his best years never usually does this so Tyson couldn't have been that bad.

Just so you know Tyson did achieve a lot, i mean a hell of a lot. Youngest champ, unified the three major belts,cleared out the division, two time champ (even after a few years in prison), plenty of defences of his undisputed title. And yet as you said "didnt achieve his potential" youve gotta be a decent fighter to achieve all this and yet not achieve your potential.

Its funny how both those fighters "most impressive victory" was over Tyson, in one case an old Tyson and another a post prison Tyson with few fights under his belt.

** Even on the eve of the McBride fight, Tyson's fearsome legend and reputation was such that the fight was considered a post knee reconstruction tune up to a possible title challenge to Lewis which was what the Williams' fight was intended before the knee blew. Williams and McBride received at least a dozen title offers after those fights, none before them.

I've stayed out of the insipid points proffered by the usual piddling suspects, but you got to admit that turnaround is fair play if you were around in the first heady days of the internet boxing forums when rabid Tyson fans ruled the roost!

I'll restrict myself to the reminder that Ibro ranks Lewis 12, Tyson 13, and Holy 14th. That, and there's a reason why Tyson never met Holy in the ring until a full decade after Tyson won his first title match and Lewis going on 2 decades later, that reason being it took Tyson that long to fall far enough in stature and for them to raise themselves up for those fights to happen.

In fact, theHoly fight is a minor classic, marred only by long standing steroid and HGH accusations against Holy and features the best, most competitive version of post prison Tyson going into the 11th rd, far and away the longest distance any post prison Tyson fight ever went. The ending significant because it features one of Holy's few KO wins after winning the title, and as you properly noted, always used by his fans to feather his superiority.

1)I am waiting to hear the great in his prime fighter that Lewis beat other than possibly the Vitali fight which he lucked out by the fight(which he was losing) getting stopped due to a cut.

2)Why does Lewis always get so much praise for beating a old drugged up Mike Tyson that was only fighting on at that point for money, but Tyson doesn't get credit for beating a Larry Holmes(who was far closer to his prime than the Tyson that Lewis beat), who was already rich,healthy, didn't need the money, and took the fight because he wanted to improve his legacy more than anything else? That still doesn't make any sense to me.


As for who was best, in terms of dominance you have to say Tyson and in terms of competition you have to give it to Holyfield. I think Holyfield was Tyson's Frazier, it would have been a difficult fight even at his best.

tyson= most overrated boxer of all time holyfield is better by far

tyson= most overrated boxer of all time holyfield is better by far

At last the voice of reason in this thread.


Thank you, sir.

The fact remains Evander and Lewis fought (and beat) a much higher level of competition.

Spinks was a great fighter but he tiny.. and scared stiff against Tyson in Atlantic City. It remains Tyson's most impressive victory.

I think boxing historians will concur with my view that Lewis was the greatest fighter of the triumvirate, followed by Evander. Your man will be bringing up the rear, and it is a position he earned by his lack of ring intelligence, lack of technical skill, and inability to take care of himself between fights.

A man's potential means nothing.. its what he does with what he has that counts.

However tiny Spinks was, he was still the Ring/lineal heavyweight champ. Nor was he as tiny as Billy Conn or Bob Foster, yet no one trashes Louis, Ali or Frazier for facing them.

Both Lewis and Holyfield beat a diminished version of Tyson, and both claim him as their marquee win, the one which did more than most to catapult them to legendary status. Yet if Tyson wasn't much good anyway, why is beating him so significant for their legacies?

Without Tyson, Holyfield's record against the top heavyweights is very inconsistent. Split wins with Moorer and 0-1-1 with Lewis. He decisioned Foreman and Holmes, who was four years older than the version KO'd by Tyson. He did beat Bowe, but also lost to him twice. In any case, what did Bowe do except beat Holyfield? He was a carbon copy of Buster Douglas in terms of talent and dedication and for one reason or another never faced most of the top heavies of his era. Holyfield didn't do anything to compare to Tyson's tear through the division in the 80s. I honestly don't see how he is "better by far", as someone claimed above.

Lewis and Tyson actually have several common opponents. Each beat Tucker, Ruddock, Bruno, Biggs, Botha, although in each case it was Tyson who beat them first. Lewis did also beat the likes of Klitschko, Tua and Mercer who imo are better than what Tyson beat at his peak with the possible exception of Tucker. But again it was the win over Tyson which prompted Foreman to call Lewis the best heavy ever. Obviously an exaggeration from Big George, but it does illustrate how important beating Tyson was for his legacy.

Tyson from 86-90 and Lewis through the 90s each did what they had to, beating all the relevant fighters and unifying the division. The difference is Lewis was able to keep it together for longer and go out at the top, whereas Tyson disintegrated after the loss of his original team and Don King taking over. So on that basis I don't have a problem with Lewis being ranked higher, although head to head, prime vs prime, I still favour Tyson.

Btw, it is ludicrous to suggest Tyson lacked technical skill.

Great post Kid McCoy, shame i couldnt give you karma for it.

However tiny Spinks was, he was still the Ring/lineal heavyweight champ. Nor was he as tiny as Billy Conn or Bob Foster, yet no one trashes Louis, Ali or Frazier for facing them.

Both Lewis and Holyfield beat a diminished version of Tyson, and both claim him as their marquee win, the one which did more than most to catapult them to legendary status. Yet if Tyson wasn't much good anyway, why is beating him so significant for their legacies?

Without Tyson, Holyfield's record against the top heavyweights is very inconsistent. Split wins with Moorer and 0-1-1 with Lewis. He decisioned Foreman and Holmes, who was four years older than the version KO'd by Tyson. He did beat Bowe, but also lost to him twice. In any case, what did Bowe do except beat Holyfield? He was a carbon copy of Buster Douglas in terms of talent and dedication and for one reason or another never faced most of the top heavies of his era. Holyfield didn't do anything to compare to Tyson's tear through the division in the 80s. I honestly don't see how he is "better by far", as someone claimed above.

Lewis and Tyson actually have several common opponents. Each beat Tucker, Ruddock, Bruno, Biggs, Botha, although in each case it was Tyson who beat them first. Lewis did also beat the likes of Klitschko, Tua and Mercer who imo are better than what Tyson beat at his peak with the possible exception of Tucker. But again it was the win over Tyson which prompted Foreman to call Lewis the best heavy ever. Obviously an exaggeration from Big George, but it does illustrate how important beating Tyson was for his legacy.

Tyson from 86-90 and Lewis through the 90s each did what they had to, beating all the relevant fighters and unifying the division. The difference is Lewis was able to keep it together for longer and go out at the top, whereas Tyson disintegrated after the loss of his original team and Don King taking over. So on that basis I don't have a problem with Lewis being ranked higher, although head to head, prime vs prime, I still favour Tyson.

Btw, it is ludicrous to suggest Tyson lacked technical skill.

I agree with everything with the excepion of the bolded part. Klitscho was a better fighter than anyone Tyson has beat(even though Lewis didn't really beat him either to be honest), but I disagree with Tua and Mercer. I have always wondered if Tua had something taken out of him from the Ibeabuchi fight(BTW if Ike didn't go crazy he probably would have been Lewis' defining fight), as he just wasn't the same after that. He became a fat slow one armed plodding fighter who threw one punch at a time, nothing like the fight with Ike. In the fights with Rahman and Ike he weighed like 225 lbs, but when he fought Lewis he was about 250lbs. As for Mercer, the only thing he was known for other than winning a medal in th olympics is being dominated by an old Larry Holmes. Even then, Mercer still won the fight imo, I thought Lewis got a gift decision. So out of his three best wins, it is arguable that he lost(or in the case of Vitali was losing) two of them.

Btw, it is ludicrous to suggest Tyson lacked technical skill.

Bull****. His skill level was mediocre at best, and it evaporated completely the day Rooney left. You are mistaking quickness for skill.

I'm astounded there are still so many Tyson knob gobblers left in the world, and how utterly willing they are to discount the man's ridiculous defeats.

Bull****. His skill level was mediocre at best, and it evaporated completely the day Rooney left. You are mistaking quickness for skill.

I'm astounded there are still so many Tyson knob gobblers left in the world, and how utterly willing they are to discount the man's ridiculous defeats.


rediculous defeats? What about Ali's losses to Leon Spinks and Berbick? Lewis' to Rahman?

Truth is, for a heavyweight he was very skilled. Why not rip on Ali for dropping his hands after every shot he threw? or leaning directly backwards to avoid shots. What about Foreman blocking punches with his face in his prime? You are quite delusional with you're posts.

Tyson wasn't the best, but for a heavyweight he ranks up there.

Holyfield was the better fighter IMO.

Holyfield was the better fighter IMO.
Totally agree proven many times over when he needed to pull out victories he Tyson couldn't hadn't the heart for all his ability

Bull****. His skill level was mediocre at best, and it evaporated completely the day Rooney left. You are mistaking quickness for skill.

I'm astounded there are still so many Tyson knob gobblers left in the world, and how utterly willing they are to discount the man's ridiculous defeats.

I'm sure Satan is ice skating today but for a change I'm defending Tyson. Yes, Tyson's KoolAid drinking nuthuggers give him a bad name but to suggest he had no ability is just idiotic. Even at worst I consider him a near-great which to my mind is no small accolade and one doesn't get rated that high without any ability.

Yes, people DO overate his defensive skill but that is only one part of the equation. Offensively he was very skilled rather than just being blessed with natural talent. There have been a number of Heavyweights over the years that possesed brutal KO power: Tyson was hardly unique in that area and not even the hardest punching of the lot. How many of them were as effective offensively as Tyson? Only a very few. Yes, his explosiveness is an inate natural talent (often confused with hand speed), but again that's only part of the equation. Offensively Tyson had the ability to put his punches together in combination, place the punches when and where they needed to go, and he threw the punches precisely. That my friend takes skill.
It also takes skill to cut off the ring against opponents unwilling to fight (and he faced many of them), to steer them to the ropes or the corners where they couldn't run, and keep them there. It takes skill to work past an opponent's longer reach (and all of Tyson's opponents had a longer reach) and put yourself in proper range for your own punches. It also takes skill to force clinches with physically larger opponents (and most of Tyson's opponents where physically larger than he was) when in closer than optimal punching range, forcing a break.

While Tyson IS grossly overated by the KoolAid drinking crowd he is hardly a no-skill bum and making him out to be one is unfair. There are plenty of areas where Tyson can be justly criticised without resorting to manufacturing things that just aren't true. Let's be fair here and not let emotional reactions to nuthuggers clowd our judgement. Tyson is no worse than a near-great and might fairly be considered among the bottom half of the ATGs. I go back and forth on just where his ranking is. Make no mistake though: Primo Carnera he was not. While at his best maybe he wouldn't win a best of ten series with the elites of the upper half of the ATG list it's ludicris to suggest he wouldn't win a fight with any of them. Anybody ranked as an ATG and many of the near greats as well is capable of pulling off a win against anyone else on the ATG list on any given night. That doesn't mean they wouldn't lose five in a row against the same opponent, but it DOES mean at least on one given night they where capable of pulling out a victory. Make fun of the KoolAid drinkers all you like, criticise Tyson for deficiencies he truly had, but lets be fair and NOT slam him for things that are made up.

Poet

definitely tyson

rediculous defeats? What about Ali's losses to Leon Spinks and Berbick? Lewis' to Rahman?

Truth is, for a heavyweight he was very skilled. Why not rip on Ali for dropping his hands after every shot he threw? or leaning directly backwards to avoid shots. What about Foreman blocking punches with his face in his prime? You are quite delusional with you're posts.

Tyson wasn't the best, but for a heavyweight he ranks up there.


well u convinced me them apples Tyson was an all time great. He dominated everyone in his fights with his awesome skill, no one could break through his inpenetratable defense, he showed the heart of a great champion, he was always sportsmanlike (especially in the second Holyfield fight), he was dominating guys like Buster Douglas (and Holy, and Lewis, and williams, and mcBride) before he happened to get caught with a lucky punch, he was totally washed up by the end of his 20s, lewis was just too young for him, the skill level he exhibited against guys like Matthis Jr. and Botha was AWESOME, he never ran from Lewis in the 80s, he only fought the best competition in the greatest era while Lewis and Holy fought bums, he set a shining example of courage and heart for youngsters everywhere to emulate, historians in the future will marvel at the greatness that was Mike Tyson



LOL LOL LOL

well u convinced me them apples Tyson was an all time great. He dominated everyone in his fights with his awesome skill, no one could break through his inpenetratable defense, he showed the heart of a great champion, he was always sportsmanlike (especially in the second Holyfield fight), he was dominating guys like Buster Douglas (and Holy, and Lewis, and williams, and mcBride) before he happened to get caught with a lucky punch, he was totally washed up by the end of his 20s, lewis was just too young for him, the skill level he exhibited against guys like Matthis Jr. and Botha was AWESOME, he never ran from Lewis in the 80s, he only fought the best competition in the greatest era while Lewis and Holy fought bums, he set a shining example of courage and heart for youngsters everywhere to emulate, historians in the future will marvel at the greatness that was Mike Tyson



LOL LOL LOL


alrighty then, I have him at about number 8 or 9 on my list. He does really well against back pedallers that give him room to launch his assault, he does very badly against brawlers that swarm and bully.

LOL LOL LOL It's a growing trend to automatically think anyone that roots for Tyson doesn't use logic. It's almost as if people are starting to think he was just a WWE fighter. It's to bad. The insults you are using apply to any great heavyweight.

I pretty much agree with what Poet says. People are going overboard with the Tyson hate to counter the nuthuggers, to the point they are becoming delusional.

In the end evander is the better fight, but if both met in the early 90's tyson wins easy.

In the end evander is the better fight, but if both met in the early 90's tyson wins easy.


But the ball-lickers will be the first to tell you that Tyson was shot by the early 90s!



:rofl:

I'm sure Satan is ice skating today but for a change I'm defending Tyson. Yes, Tyson's KoolAid drinking nuthuggers give him a bad name but to suggest he had no ability is just idiotic. Even at worst I consider him a near-great which to my mind is no small accolade and one doesn't get rated that high without any ability.

Yes, people DO overate his defensive skill but that is only one part of the equation. Offensively he was very skilled rather than just being blessed with natural talent. There have been a number of Heavyweights over the years that possesed brutal KO power: Tyson was hardly unique in that area and not even the hardest punching of the lot. How many of them were as effective offensively as Tyson? Only a very few. Yes, his explosiveness is an inate natural talent (often confused with hand speed), but again that's only part of the equation. Offensively Tyson had the ability to put his punches together in combination, place the punches when and where they needed to go, and he threw the punches precisely. That my friend takes skill.
It also takes skill to cut off the ring against opponents unwilling to fight (and he faced many of them), to steer them to the ropes or the corners where they couldn't run, and keep them there. It takes skill to work past an opponent's longer reach (and all of Tyson's opponents had a longer reach) and put yourself in proper range for your own punches. It also takes skill to force clinches with physically larger opponents (and most of Tyson's opponents where physically larger than he was) when in closer than optimal punching range, forcing a break.

While Tyson IS grossly overated by the KoolAid drinking crowd he is hardly a no-skill bum and making him out to be one is unfair. There are plenty of areas where Tyson can be justly criticised without resorting to manufacturing things that just aren't true. Let's be fair here and not let emotional reactions to nuthuggers clowd our judgement. Tyson is no worse than a near-great and might fairly be considered among the bottom half of the ATGs. I go back and forth on just where his ranking is. Make no mistake though: Primo Carnera he was not. While at his best maybe he wouldn't win a best of ten series with the elites of the upper half of the ATG list it's ludicris to suggest he wouldn't win a fight with any of them. Anybody ranked as an ATG and many of the near greats as well is capable of pulling off a win against anyone else on the ATG list on any given night. That doesn't mean they wouldn't lose five in a row against the same opponent, but it DOES mean at least on one given night they where capable of pulling out a victory. Make fun of the KoolAid drinkers all you like, criticise Tyson for deficiencies he truly had, but lets be fair and NOT slam him for things that are made up.

Poet

Nice post man, i totally agree although i do consider Tyson an ATG. It is very hard to defend Tyson without being labelled a "nuthugger", believe me i get just as annoyed when they make outrageous claims about Tyson, in fact it has the adverse effect and people dislike Tyson because of it!.

well u convinced me them apples Tyson was an all time great. He dominated everyone in his fights with his awesome skill, no one could break through his inpenetratable defense, he showed the heart of a great champion, he was always sportsmanlike (especially in the second Holyfield fight), he was dominating guys like Buster Douglas (and Holy, and Lewis, and williams, and mcBride) before he happened to get caught with a lucky punch, he was totally washed up by the end of his 20s, lewis was just too young for him, the skill level he exhibited against guys like Matthis Jr. and Botha was AWESOME, he never ran from Lewis in the 80s, he only fought the best competition in the greatest era while Lewis and Holy fought bums, he set a shining example of courage and heart for youngsters everywhere to emulate, historians in the future will marvel at the greatness that was Mike Tyson



LOL LOL LOL

For every Tyson "nuthugger" there are about half a dozen others whose hatred for him clouds all logic and reason, resulting in childish, throwing-the-toys-out-of the-pram posts like yours. The triple LOL at the end was an especially mature touch.

Btw, very good and fair post Poet. I'd give you some karma but apparently I have to spread some around first.

Well, if the poll is anything to go by the vast majority of fight fans consider Evander Holyfield the better fighter.. the silent majority have spoken!

But what's to compare when u really think about it? Evander is as versatile in the ring as a Swiss pocketknife while Tyson is just a power puncher with fast hands.

evander is a great fighter for me than tyson....:spank::spank: hello guys just droppin by im newbie here...

Well, if the poll is anything to go by the vast majority of fight fans consider Evander Holyfield the better fighter.. the silent majority have spoken!

But what's to compare when u really think about it? Evander is as versatile in the ring as a Swiss pocketknife while Tyson is just a power puncher with fast hands.

Personally i find to difficult to pick out who was the "greater" fighter, there are so many ways you can judge this. That's why i haven't voted on this poll, i just hate seeing all the Tyson haters gather together and say things that are completely false.

Nice post man, i totally agree although i do consider Tyson an ATG. It is very hard to defend Tyson without being labelled a "nuthugger", believe me i get just as annoyed when they make outrageous claims about Tyson, in fact it has the adverse effect and people dislike Tyson because of it!.

And that was my point entirely. The nuthugging crowd invariably cause a backlash against Tyson through their slavish pronouncments. It's not fair to Tyson because he ends up being judged in light of his loony KoolAid drinkers.

There's plenty of strong points Tyson can be praised for without making them up the way the nuthuggers do. By the same token there are plenty of points where Tyson can be fairly criticized without making things up the way the Tyson bashers do. I don't think it does either side any credit when they have to resort to falsehood to make their case.

I DO like to torment the nuthugging crowd, but my critiques of Tyson have never involved making stuff up about him: I have limited myself to showing that he really CAN'T walk on water or part the Red Sea and that he wasn't even close to being the best Heavyweight ever. I have never said, whether explicetly or implied, that he was a "bum": And I never will because it is demonstably untrue! As I said, there is plenty of room for critizing Tyson's over-all ability without having to fabricate things just as there is plenty of room for praise without resorting to the same.

Poet

He tried an failed.

Umm, we were talking about "trying" Lennox's chin, not "trying" to beat him.






Oh right Bowe was smaller, thats the excuse.




The whole conversation was about lewis' chin so ofcourse Bowe's size is an issue! The point is, saying that Lewis took shots from Bowe in a manner that suggests that it was a normal sized Bowe in his technical prime (without a bunch of head gear on Lewis) is misleading.

Lewis even had trouble with a slow ponderous Trevor Berbick, he would have a whole lot more with a quick, hard hitting prime Tyson. Like i said, I give Tyson 2 out of three.

Umm, we were talking about "trying" Lennox's chin, not "trying" to beat him.










The whole conversation was about lewis' chin so ofcourse Bowe's size is an issue! The point is, saying that Lewis took shots from Bowe in a manner that suggests that it was a normal sized Bowe in his technical prime (without a bunch of head gear on Lewis) is misleading.

Lewis even had trouble with a slow ponderous Trevor Berbick, he would have a whole lot more with a quick, hard hitting prime Tyson. Like i said, I give Tyson 2 out of three.

lol Wow, i should check these posts before I submit them. Make that Frank Bruno, not Trevor Berbick.

It Tyson had fought him earlier when he was still with Cus D'amato, I think the result may have been different.

you were told the worst thing to do is retreat??

i came, i saw, i conquered.

holyfield would be game, but tyson was just the all around better fighter. it wasn't like holyfield was very hard to hit and riddick bowe rocked him multiple times in their fights. i also don't think holyfield would try to circle tyson, i think he' come at him which would be a big mistake.

Easy Evander fought and beat better comp. Tyson and Wlad resume are similar.

I'm gonna have to go with Iron Mike , if the fight was staged between both at their prime. Even though Holyfield had a granite chin and was superbly conditioned , I still reckon that by the time the two actually met , Mike had lost a ton of speed and had other issues around him at the time. NO BODY could apply the pressure of a prime Tyson and I dont think Evander would have been prepared for it.

NO BODY could apply the pressure of a prime Tyson and I dont think Evander would have been prepared for it.

NO ONE? Ever heard of Dempsey? Louis? Marciano? Liston? Frazier? Foreman? Further, Holyfield had made a study of Tyson ever since the 84' Olympic trials: I think he would have been prepared.

Poet

holyfield would be game, but tyson was just the all around better fighter.

_______________________________________________


:wtf:

holyfield -= more diciplined fighter

tyson = raw power nd talent

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.

holyfield -= more diciplined fighter

tyson = raw power nd talent

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.

I see several fighters OWNING him.

holyfield -= more diciplined fighter

tyson = raw power nd talent

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.


Journeyman and perennial underachiever Buster Douglas made him look crude and amateurish. And don't tell me Tyson was washed up at age 22 or 23 or whatever

I see several fighters OWNING him.

u say that cuz he been knocked out...

i dont believe tysone ever maxed out his potential.

he self destructed with the ppl he chose to surround himself with and the decisions he made.

Holyfield is much better!!



http://emag.joreeldiaz.com/pacquiao-vs-hatton/

Tysons the type of guy who ether anhilates his opponents or gets taken to school himself.

for instance I see Foreman pushing him around and ending the fight with repeated upper cuts, where as I see Tyson Koing a guy like Frazier early. All depends on who he's up against.

holyfield -= more diciplined fighter

tyson = raw power nd talent

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.

Must be because you're too busy sucking off Tyson to notice.

Poet

u say that cuz he been knocked out...

i dont believe tysone ever maxed out his potential.

he self destructed with the ppl he chose to surround himself with and the decisions he made.

First off, type in English not Ebonics. Second, you'd have to know nothing about boxing to think Tyson was the most talented Heavyweight to step in the ring. Never maxed out his potential? NO fighter ever maxed out his potential. Get a clue, human beings always die never fulfilling their potential. Tyson was a human being, not a god. If you'd stop sipping the KoolAid long enough you might notice.....

Poet

Tysons the type of guy who ether anhilates his opponents or gets taken to school himself.

for instance I see Foreman pushing him around and ending the fight with repeated upper cuts, where as I see Tyson Koing a guy like Frazier early. All depends on who he's up against.

Really depends on whether Frazier can survive the early blitz. Something to think about though: Foreman had a significant reach advantage over Frazier that helped cause that massacre. Frazier actually has a longer reach than Tyson.

Poet

Really depends on whether Frazier can survive the early blitz. Something to think about though: Foreman had a significant reach advantage over Frazier that helped cause that massacre. Frazier actually has a longer reach than Tyson.

Poet

I don't think it was so much Foreman's reach advantage, Frazier's entire career was based around getting inside someones reach. I think it was Foreman's world class uppercut and refusal to back up, even when hit flush.

Frazier to me didn't seem to have any problems with connecting to Georges jaw, only problem is, Foreman didn't have any problem with that ether.

For me personally, he 8 times out of 10 would not handle the early blitz. Out of the 5 rounds that Tyson is effective, I can't see Frazier not getting hurt at least once, once he gets hurt I see him getting finished(one of the things Tyson was actually quite good at).

Of course if it did go into the later rounds, It's Fraziers ball game. In my opinion though, it wouldn't.

sry for the off topic though:boxing:

Evander was the better fighter as far as consistency, stamina and chin and he had more ways of winning( Tyson wasn't out boxing anyone). But as far as stand out talent like hand speed, power and combination's, Mike was better there. Since i favor Holyfield to beat Tyson every time and Evaner's more dimensions, i have to say hes the all around better fighter.

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.

You need better glasses.

Evander Holyfield

Dwight Muhammad Qawi x2
Carlos De Leon
Ossie Ocasio
Henry Tillman
James Tillis
Pinklon Thomas
Alex Stewart x2
Buster Douglas
George Foreman
Bert Cooper
Larry Holmes
Riddick Bowe = But lost 2 out of 3
Michael Moorer = 1-1
Ray Mercer
Mike Tyson x2
Hasim Rahman
Michael Dokes

World Titles at Cruiserweight, Heavyweight. 5 defense's at Cruiserweight, 7 at Heavyweight combined.

Mike Tyson

Mitch Green
James Tillis
Jesse Ferguson
Trevor Berbick
James Smith
Tony Tucker
Frank Bruno x2
Tyrell Biggs
Pinklon Thomas
Larry Holmes
Tony Tubbs
Michael Spinks
Carl Williams
Razor Ruddock x2
Henry Tillman
Bruce Seldon
Clifford Eitenne

World titles defense's at Heavyweight 10 combined.

sry for the off topic though:boxing:

Nothing to be sorry for: It's a valid comparison :boxing:

I don't think it was so much Foreman's reach advantage, Frazier's entire career was based around getting inside someones reach. I think it was Foreman's world class uppercut and refusal to back up, even when hit flush.

Frazier to me didn't seem to have any problems with connecting to Georges jaw, only problem is, Foreman didn't have any problem with that ether.

For me personally, he 8 times out of 10 would not handle the early blitz. Out of the 5 rounds that Tyson is effective, I can't see Frazier not getting hurt at least once, once he gets hurt I see him getting finished(one of the things Tyson was actually quite good at).

Of course if it did go into the later rounds, It's Fraziers ball game. In my opinion though, it wouldn't.

I go back and forth on this one. Half the time I'm thinking Frazier can't survive Tyson's fast start, the other half I'm thinking he can so maybe in my own mind I got it 50/50 LOL. The reach factor was significant because, while Frazier may not have had problems finding Foreman's chin he wasn't able to find it often enough to back Foreman off. Frazier had to take a lot of punishment just to land one of his own shots: Against the kind of damage Foreman could dish out that was an ugly equation. As it was, Foreman could just T off without fear of getting a lot back in return courtesy of his reach. You may be right though and it might not have mattered.

Poet

Evander was the better fighter as far as consistency, stamina and chin and he had more ways of winning( Tyson wasn't out boxing anyone). But as far as stand out talent like hand speed, power and combination's, Mike was better there. Since i favor Holyfield to beat Tyson every time and Evaner's more dimensions, i have to say hes the all around better fighter.

Old football saying: Run for dough, pass for show. As it applies here, Tyson may have done things well that are eye-catching but may not have been the most important things to winning. As I always say: Fighters that generate a lot of offense are ALWAYS overrated by fans, simply because it's what they like to see. They invariably consfuse entertainment with greatness. Fans will typically rate a great punching power higher than a great chin, yet ask any boxing expert which is more important and they'll tell you it's better to have a great chin than a great punch.

Poet

Evander became an Undisputed champion at cruiserweight, when that category was lower (86kg~190lbs i guess), moved up to face much bigger guys, became an undisputed heavyweight champion, became a four-time heavyweight champion (yes with the help of WBA, arguably, but without it`s help he, probably, had won a title at the age of 46...)...

He faced bigger guys, was down so rarely you can hardly remember those times, beat Tyson twice, gave Lewis a hell of a fight in their second meeting, went through wars with Riddick Bowe and George Foreman and so on, and so on, and so on...

Evander is better fighter, and his resume is better.

i dont see anybody beating prime tyson PERIOD.

thats the kind of logic you go up against when debating tyson fans

Holyfield. End of discussion.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2007/1118/box_g_tyson_holyfield_580.jpg

They didn't call him The Real Deal for nothing. Holyfield was better, but both are all time greats.

this is too close for me. ill go with evander because he has the longevity.

Aside from the Alleged HGH use from Holyfield, one thing i cannot let go is the fact Holyfield was let off for blatantly head butting Tyson in both fights. OK, Tyson going insane and biting Holyfield in the 2nd bout because of the headbutting was wrong, but Holyfield's antics were masked because of it.

I mean how rare does a gash open from a headbutt? Tyson had on in EACH eye in the first bout, and even second bout, the opening rounds had Tyson get yet another Gash!

The same Tyson i dont think who never had any problems with cuts or gashes, surprisingly got cuts all over his face by Holyfield.

Personally, Prime v Prime, Tyson takes it.

Holyfield head butted his way against a Post-Prison Tyson who's Post Prison record was 9-4, and Pre-Prison record was 41-1

http://www.foxnews.com/images/310524/0_61_holyfield320.jpg

Holyfield scoffs at your attempts to discredit his legacy with such outrageous allegations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38050000/jpg/_38050430_rahman150.jpg

Rahman was obviously busted up from precision punching.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3oyrq4Q5gM

And Dokes is clearly rocked by a clean combo.

Holyfield head butted his way against a Post-Prison Tyson who's Post Prison record was 9-4, and Pre-Prison record was 41-1

Dirty fighter or not, Holyfield beat Tyson wtih strategy, mental toughness, and conditioning.

Your stats are also terribly misleading as I assume was your intent. Leading up to the Tyson fight Holyfield had been in and out of retirement with weird health problems. He had been upset by Moorer in a disappointing performance and was knocked out for the first time in his career by Bowe in a fight that looked to be the end of his career. Tyson was heavily favored with a 4-0 record since prison having destroyed Seldon and Bruno. Few gave Holyfield a chance coming into the fight and rightfully so.

They didn't call him The Real Deal for nothing.

** Out of the ring, they call him Evan Field.

It wudda been a great fight prime for prime. Resume & ATG rank easily goes to Evander.

Holyfield is the better fighter. He beat better competition as well as defeated tyson twice

I don't think it was so much Foreman's reach advantage, Frazier's entire career was based around getting inside someones reach. I think it was Foreman's world class uppercut and refusal to back up, even when hit flush.

Frazier to me didn't seem to have any problems with connecting to Georges jaw, only problem is, Foreman didn't have any problem with that ether.

For me personally, he 8 times out of 10 would not handle the early blitz. Out of the 5 rounds that Tyson is effective, I can't see Frazier not getting hurt at least once, once he gets hurt I see him getting finished(one of the things Tyson was actually quite good at).

Of course if it did go into the later rounds, It's Fraziers ball game. In my opinion though, it wouldn't.

sry for the off topic though:boxing:


Yeah Frazier was an inside fighter anyway, it's not like he is going to be backing up keeping Tyson at the end of a jab or something. He wants to be inside firing tight left hooks. Another problem Frazier has is that he usually starts slow. Tyson on the other hand is the complete opposite. Add on top of that the fact that Tyson has two dangerous hands instead of one and can in general throw punches faster than Frazier and it just dosen't look good for him.

Mike Tyson in hes prime was better then the best of Evander Holyfield.

Remember that Tyson had been in prison 3 and a half year and faught nobodies before he met a good shape Holyfield.

Tyson was a bigger puncher and had a great chin. Holyfield struggeled with alot of ordinary fighters in hes career wich Tyson beat very easily. i dont understand how anyone can say Holyfield if you think about Tyson in the 80s. Just look at how Larry Holmes faught them

Holyfield is the better fighter. He beat better competition as well as defeated tyson twice

** Indeedy, sweetie, let's examine the myth of UnHoly.

1. UH steals the Tyson unified title away from King against out of shape Douglas who was clearly looking for a payday and retirement. Tyson against a prime, well experienced Berbick in shape at his best. Advantage, Tyson.

2. UH defends 40+ Foreman where UH was rocked early and hanging on for dear life late. Tyson was unifying against "prime" Bonecrush who was hanging on for dear life all through save the last 30 sec where he surprises Tyson with a sucker punch out of a clinch but can't follow up, dropping a wide decision. Advantage Tyson.

3. UH defends against Cooper who had been soundly defeated by most every heavy with class he ever faced. Cooper almost finishes UH off before running out of steam and being KOed. Tyson defends against once defeated former champ and formidable prime physical speciman. Took a major beatdown by Mike on the tough Pinklon, but mission accomplished. Advantage Tyson.

4. UH defends against former champ Holmes in his 2nd comeback years later and is out fought on the ropes at times and out of gas and clueless for much of the decision he was fortunate to nick. Tyson is unifying against a top era champ/contender, also undefeated who makes a good show early but has to back off mid rounds as he assumes the Ali pop the jab and fleets the feet strategy to lose a wide decision against Mike who was out jabbing the taller master jabber. Advantage Tyson.

5. UH defends against the era Baby Huey and is outboxed, out slugged, and out worked in most every phase by the undefeated slug and drops his title. Tyson defends against the undefeated superheavy Olympic Gold Medalist who set Lennox Lewis back several grades. Biggs was a bigger, stronger, version of prime run and pop Ali, so Tyson cut him off his escape routes and unmercifully chopped him down in short order. Advantage Tyson.

6. UH nicks a majority decision against Baby Huey who showed up looking a lumpy mess and regains his title. Tyson defends against the former still claiming to be undefeated champ, Holmes and dismisses him as easily as a child. Advantage Tyson.

7. UH promptly reverts back to being flushable against the newest undefeated, former LH champ to outbox and confuse a heavy champ, Moorer, who takes UH's title again. Meanwhile, prime Tyson blows out former champ Tubbs like a birthday candle. Advantage, Tyson.

8. In an odd, opportune juxtaposition of eras, UH has an opportunity to wrest the WBA bauble over the rusty returning newly crowned former champ. Wins by TKO in a great fight marred by ongoing steroid accusations. Prime Tyson meanwhile completes his 4th and final unification bout against the undefeated "Lineal" champ, Spinks, whom he dismisses as easily as a baby might be put in his crib for a nap. Advantage Tyson.

9. UH defends against Tyson who melts down after repeated early unpenalized head butts and bites off some of UH's ear and is DQed in a disgracefully fought and officiated fight. Tyson, coming off a brutal divorce settlement and attempted suicide attempt and dismissal of the surviving members of his original team, dismisses British Champ Bruno in a good slug out. Advantage Tyson.

10. UH avenges his defeat against the former LH champ, now 2x heavy champ Moorer with a KO. Tyson whacks out era contender Truth Williams in a blink. Advantage UH.

11. UH defends against the "other" Bean of the era, the forgettable Vaughn. Tyson defends against former contender Douglas who shows up in the best shape of his career, and thanks to another greatest era robbery via long count, survives to knock down and out a strangely lethargic Tyson who slept walked through the entire bout save for a single lucky shot that downed Douglas for the long count. Advantage, UH.

12. UH attempts his first unification bout against Lewis, and barely shows at the gate in one of the great era robberies of boxing, but keeps his belt with a draw. A ring rusty Tyson is coming off a 5 yr layoff to take newly crowned Bruno's title away in another good slugout. Advantage Tyson.

13. UH attempts his 2nd unification against Lewis, who this time is rewarded for his superior boxing skills and takes UH's title away for the 3rd time in his career. Tyson blows out Seldon in a match so one sided cries of fix rang out in the crowd. Advantage Tyson.

14. UH attempts to win his record 4th title in a WBA series against Ruiz, outpoints Juanita over 12 dreary rounds.Tyson never won another title fight after his "lucky" 13th title bout, dropping 3 straight Advantage UH.

15. UH marks up his record with an 0-4-1 finish to set the all time heavy record for titles lost. Advantage Tyson.

Final record, Tyson 12 - UH 3

Evander would have Beat Tyson in his prime, He knew how to Beat Mike, And when people say that Tyson wasnt the same, Well Evander wasnt in his prime either, but he still could handle Tyson, Tyson was a great fighter, if the other guy was nervous or scared, But Evander had his number, Prime and No Prime

I was gonna post the exact same thing.. Evander anyday.

Mike Tyson in hes prime was better then the best of Evander Holyfield.

Remember that Tyson had been in prison 3 and a half year and faught nobodies before he met a good shape Holyfield.

Tyson was a bigger puncher and had a great chin. Holyfield struggeled with alot of ordinary fighters in hes career wich Tyson beat very easily. i dont understand how anyone can say Holyfield if you think about Tyson in the 80s. Just look at how Larry Holmes faught them

Tyson could take post-prime Holmes out because of one word: power. Holyfield didn't have that kind of power other wise you would have seen the same result in his fight with Holmes. Does that mean that Tyson can beat Holyfield? Tyson had pretty much that same power when he fought Holyfield later (power is one of the last things to go in a fighter).

The only real variable for Prime Tyson to take advantage of is speed, but speed really wouldn't help too much If Holyfield was implementing the plan that he used to beat Tyson in their actual fight. Only out thinking him and reversing that strategy somehow would. Speed isn't as effective deep on the inside, especially when your opponent has his guard ready to fend off your attack because that is his plan.

Oh and By the way, Tyson also fought a Holmes coming off a two year lay off with no tune up fights.

Oh and By the way, Tyson also fought a Holmes coming off a two year lay off with no tune up fights.


** Oh, and by the way, Tyson also fought a Holmes who had been stalking and scouting him at fights, and training for just him for over a yr.

Yeah Frazier was an inside fighter anyway, it's not like he is going to be backing up keeping Tyson at the end of a jab or something. He wants to be inside firing tight left hooks. Another problem Frazier has is that he usually starts slow. Tyson on the other hand is the complete opposite. Add on top of that the fact that Tyson has two dangerous hands instead of one and can in general throw punches faster than Frazier and it just dosen't look good for him.

personally i think frazier would win, unless the ref stopped it. people remmember that foreman knocked frazier down like 14 times or some ****, but they often 4get that frazier got up EVERY time, if he makes it past round 5, then he wins.

now....... if tyson fought evander when tyson was prime, around 1986-1989, then i think tyson would win. evander wouldnt be fast enough to get away from tyson, and back then evander had a habit of trading punches when in bad spots. if there is 10 seconds where tyson and holy are mixing it up, its pretty obvious who would be knocked into the 5th row.