View Full Version : Who was better?Tyson or Holyfield?


Prorock
11-11-2004, 01:28 PM
Both men were great fighters with impressive undefeated streaks.

Holyfield's undefeated streak 1984-1992:

28-0 (22) overall
10-0 (7) in World title fights
11-0 (7) vs. World Champions
4-0 (1) vs. Hall of Famers fighters (Qawi x2, Foreman, and Holmes)

Tyson's undefeated streak 1984-1990:

37-0 (33) overall
10-0 (8) in World title fights
9-0 (7) vs. World Champions
2-0 (2) vs. Hall of Fame fighters (Holmes and M. Spinks)

Let's see who they beat during these streaks.

Holyfield-

The World champions-

Tyrone Booze W8 (WBO CW champ)
Dwight Qawi x2 W15 and KO4 (WBC LHW and WBA CW champ)
Ossie Ocasio KO11 KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Ricky Parkey KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Carlos DeLeon KO8 (WBC CW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO7 (WBC HW champ)
Michael Dokes KO10 (WBA HW champ)
James Douglas KO3 (Lineal HW champ)
George Foreman W12 (2x Lineal HW champ)
Larry Holmes (Lineal HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Anthony Davis KO4
Henry Tillman KO7
James Tillis KO5
Bert Cooper KO7

Some of the other guys-

Jesse Shelby KO3
Adilson Rodrigues KO2
Alex Stewart KO8

Tyson-

The World champs-

Alfonso Ratliff KO2 (WBC CW champ)
Trevor Berbick KO2 (WBC HW champ)
James Smith W12 (WBA HW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO6 (WBC HW champ)
Tony Tucker W12 (IBF HW champ)
Larry Holmes KO4 (Lineal HW champ)
Tony Tubbs KO2 (WBA HW champ)
Michael Spinks KO1 (Lineal LHW and HW champ)
Frank Bruno KO5 (WBC HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Jesse Ferguson KO6
James Tillis W10
Marvis Frazier KO1
Tyrell Biggs KO7
Carl Williams KO1

Some of the other guys-

Reggie Gross KO1
Jose Ribalta KO10

Both records look very good.

Let's see what they did after their first loss.

Holyfield-

10-7-2 (3) overall and 6-5 (2) in World title fights. Two of the losses are by KO. He beat 3 of the 6 men that beat him, he drew with another.

Tyson-

13-5 (11) 2NC overall and 2-4 (2) in World title fights. Four of the losses are by KO. He has no wins over any of the men that beat him.

What's your opinion my friends?

jabsRstiff
11-11-2004, 01:44 PM
Lb4lb....Holyfield is much better than Tyson.

AJ53
11-11-2004, 03:21 PM
Both men were great fighters with impressive undefeated streaks.

Holyfield's undefeated streak 1984-1992:

28-0 (22) overall
10-0 (7) in World title fights
11-0 (7) vs. World Champions
4-0 (1) vs. Hall of Famers fighters (Qawi x2, Foreman, and Holmes)

Tyson's undefeated streak 1984-1990:

37-0 (33) overall
10-0 (8) in World title fights
9-0 (7) vs. World Champions
2-0 (2) vs. Hall of Fame fighters (Holmes and M. Spinks)

Let's see who they beat during these streaks.

Holyfield-

The World champions-

Tyrone Booze W8 (WBO CW champ)
Dwight Qawi x2 W15 and KO4 (WBC LHW and WBA CW champ)
Ossie Ocasio KO11 KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Ricky Parkey KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Carlos DeLeon KO8 (WBC CW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO7 (WBC HW champ)
Michael Dokes KO10 (WBA HW champ)
James Douglas KO3 (Lineal HW champ)
George Foreman W12 (2x Lineal HW champ)
Larry Holmes (Lineal HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Anthony Davis KO4
Henry Tillman KO7
James Tillis KO5
Bert Cooper KO7

Some of the other guys-

Jesse Shelby KO3
Adilson Rodrigues KO2
Alex Stewart KO8

Tyson-

The World champs-

Alfonso Ratliff KO2 (WBC CW champ)
Trevor Berbick KO2 (WBC HW champ)
James Smith W12 (WBA HW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO6 (WBC HW champ)
Tony Tucker W12 (IBF HW champ)
Larry Holmes KO4 (Lineal HW champ)
Tony Tubbs KO2 (WBA HW champ)
Michael Spinks KO1 (Lineal LHW and HW champ)
Frank Bruno KO5 (WBC HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Jesse Ferguson KO6
James Tillis W10
Marvis Frazier KO1
Tyrell Biggs KO7
Carl Williams KO1

Some of the other guys-

Reggie Gross KO1
Jose Ribalta KO10

Both records look very good.

Let's see what they did after their first loss.

Holyfield-

10-7-2 (3) overall and 6-5 (2) in World title fights. Two of the losses are by KO. He beat 3 of the 6 men that beat him, he drew with another.

Tyson-

13-5 (11) 2NC overall and 2-4 (2) in World title fights. Four of the losses are by KO. He has no wins over any of the men that beat him.

What's your opinion my friends?
**** me you've researched that ****. respect :)
holyfield is the better fighter
but tyson will always be the bigger name
both will get to canastota when the time comes.

tracylee
11-11-2004, 04:02 PM
Lb4lb....Holyfield is much better than Tyson.

Agreed!!!!! ;)

Great
11-11-2004, 05:02 PM
Very nice, Prorock. Very nice.
On a paper career of Holyfield is looked better, than career of the Tyson.

Silencer
11-12-2004, 02:51 AM
It's hard to say who's better between these two greats. But I would say, it's Tyson. Because most fight fans like to see his fights whether they like him or not.

TheGreat1
11-12-2004, 03:17 AM
holyfield, easy. also lets not forget Holy KO'd mike in a easy win. and i really hope no one says Mike was old, because holy is older.

BoxingPromoter
11-14-2004, 01:24 PM
:mad: Prorock, great analysis backed up with facts. My answer to that

question is mostly subjective. Mike Tyson had "awe inspiring

appeal," Holyfield did not. Early to middle of his career, Mike

Tyson basically knocked everyone out who faced him. In addition,

those knockouts were incredibly entertaining (Holmes,Thomas,

Berbick,Frasier,Spinks,etc.) When Mike Tyson finally lost to

Douglas it was front page news. People cared about and followed

heavyweight boxing in the 80s and 90s because of him. Holyfield

on the other hand, although fighting some memorable fights

(Douglas,Foreman,Bowe) never had the star power and "awe

inspiring appeal" like Mike Tyson. When Holyfield lost for the

first time it wasn't a really big deal. And also, many of Holy

fields fights don't end with an exciting Ko like most of Tyson's

whether it be him or his oppenent. :mad:

bigdlb12
11-14-2004, 05:36 PM
Holyfield without a dout, although Tyson is IMO known more around the world, hell who doesnt know who Tyson is?

rsl
11-14-2004, 07:30 PM
Overall Holyfield, but Tyson wins in two categories and that is punching power and speed.

markosg19
11-15-2004, 11:28 AM
i reckon there are a couple of fights that if they happened would be able to clear up this area. Firstly Tyson v Bowe in 95 and i would have like to have seen holyfield v Razor Rudduck 91-92. I reckon of these fights would have taken place it would be much easier to answer. But i personally think Tyson in 88 was better than holyfield in 92 (their primes)

Keleneki
11-16-2004, 03:48 AM
Thanks for the research Prorock. I think that Holyfield was better.

realtim
11-16-2004, 05:30 AM
This is a no brainer i dint even have to think.
Holyfield all the way. Prime or no prime or whatever. he beat him twice.

Argentina
11-22-2004, 09:45 PM
Both men were great fighters with impressive undefeated streaks.

Holyfield's undefeated streak 1984-1992:

28-0 (22) overall
10-0 (7) in World title fights
11-0 (7) vs. World Champions
4-0 (1) vs. Hall of Famers fighters (Qawi x2, Foreman, and Holmes)

Tyson's undefeated streak 1984-1990:

37-0 (33) overall
10-0 (8) in World title fights
9-0 (7) vs. World Champions
2-0 (2) vs. Hall of Fame fighters (Holmes and M. Spinks)

Let's see who they beat during these streaks.

Holyfield-

The World champions-

Tyrone Booze W8 (WBO CW champ)
Dwight Qawi x2 W15 and KO4 (WBC LHW and WBA CW champ)
Ossie Ocasio KO11 KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Ricky Parkey KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Carlos DeLeon KO8 (WBC CW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO7 (WBC HW champ)
Michael Dokes KO10 (WBA HW champ)
James Douglas KO3 (Lineal HW champ)
George Foreman W12 (2x Lineal HW champ)
Larry Holmes (Lineal HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Anthony Davis KO4
Henry Tillman KO7
James Tillis KO5
Bert Cooper KO7

Some of the other guys-

Jesse Shelby KO3
Adilson Rodrigues KO2
Alex Stewart KO8

Tyson-

The World champs-

Alfonso Ratliff KO2 (WBC CW champ)
Trevor Berbick KO2 (WBC HW champ)
James Smith W12 (WBA HW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO6 (WBC HW champ)
Tony Tucker W12 (IBF HW champ)
Larry Holmes KO4 (Lineal HW champ)
Tony Tubbs KO2 (WBA HW champ)
Michael Spinks KO1 (Lineal LHW and HW champ)
Frank Bruno KO5 (WBC HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Jesse Ferguson KO6
James Tillis W10
Marvis Frazier KO1
Tyrell Biggs KO7
Carl Williams KO1

Some of the other guys-

Reggie Gross KO1
Jose Ribalta KO10

Both records look very good.

Let's see what they did after their first loss.

Holyfield-

10-7-2 (3) overall and 6-5 (2) in World title fights. Two of the losses are by KO. He beat 3 of the 6 men that beat him, he drew with another.

Tyson-

13-5 (11) 2NC overall and 2-4 (2) in World title fights. Four of the losses are by KO. He has no wins over any of the men that beat him.

What's your opinion my friends?
Holyfield, after all, he beat Tyson twice. Tyson doesn't like it when someone punches back at him and boxes, while Holyfield doesn't seem to like it when someone boxes him. Neither is perfect, but i pick Holyfiel.d

FistoftheDallasStar
11-22-2004, 10:16 PM
Prime Tyson vs. Prime Holyfield, Iron Mike would win this. Mike just wasn't the same fighter when he returned to the ring from prison. If they would have fought before he entered prison I belive Mike would have won.

Ivansmamma
11-23-2004, 04:54 AM
Holyfield has proven that he's better than Mike.

blackbelt2003
11-26-2004, 10:42 AM
Agreed. Holyfield has beaten far better opposition than Mike, and stayed at the top for a decade, as opposed to Mike's two brief reigns.

Mike never came back from adversity like Holy did.

Black

paulmmv
11-27-2004, 03:15 AM
tyson is the best

foremanfan
12-07-2004, 03:23 PM
I go for Holyfield. Holyfield benifited from tough fights that Mike was unable to. The only down side of steam-rollering the majority of your opponents is that yopu don't get to learn to be able to cope with adversity. I have always felt that Mike has looked only as good as his opponents have allowed him to and believe that if Mike had fought a guy like Hoylfield in his prime Mike would have unravveled much as he did when both guys were past prime. I'm often amazed how the Tyson fans will complain that their man was past prime when he fought Holy but you know so was Holy. It's all to easy to look unbeatable if the other guy is falling down from punches that frankly at times don't even look to have landed quickly. In a who's the most popular contest Tyson, who was the more able Holyfield.

Mr. Violence
12-07-2004, 03:26 PM
Holyfield was better. Faced and beat better competition. Even beat Mike Tyson twice. But Tysons 3 year reign of terror was more memorable than Holyfield's reign.

foremanfan
12-07-2004, 03:34 PM
Holyfield was better. Faced and beat better competition. Even beat Mike Tyson twice. But Tysons 3 year reign of terror was more memorable than Holyfield's reign.
I must admit I was pleased when Holy got the title because no matter who Holyfield fought it was generally prettyy competitive. I was getting bored of seeing one round wash outs at 3.30am on a sunday morning.

sssse
12-11-2004, 03:59 PM
Holyfield.

gogan
12-14-2004, 11:07 AM
fame wise tyson
respect wise holyfeild

i respect holyfeild bc hes faught and beat some of the greatest
i beleive tyson is way more famous though

tikal
12-16-2004, 08:29 PM
In there Primes Tyson was muuuch better than Holyfield. Guys that Holyfield struggled to beat in 12 rounds Mike anhilated them in 4 rounds or less. But after Tyson got out of prison its a different story.


Larry Holmes
Holyfield UD 12
Tyson KO4

Alex Stewart
HOlyfield UD 12
Holyfield TKO 8
Tyson KO1

Henry Tilman
Holyfield TKO 7
Tyson KO 1

nadz
12-16-2004, 08:49 PM
In there Primes Tyson was muuuch better than Holyfield. Guys that Holyfield struggled to beat in 12 rounds Mike anhilated them in 4 rounds or less. But after Tyson got out of prison its a different story.


Larry Holmes
Holyfield UD 12
Tyson KO4

Alex Stewart
HOlyfield UD 12
Holyfield TKO 8
Tyson KO1

Henry Tilman
Holyfield TKO 7
Tyson KO 1

i agree a 100% on this post :cool:

Tyson_Bit_Holyfields_Ear
12-19-2004, 02:02 AM
I.M.O Prime Tyson was better.

Hunna
12-19-2004, 08:48 AM
Gotta remember guys, no fighter is totally dominant in a division, because of different fighting styles. Theres always other an opponent out there, who style is awkard and neutralising to a champion's style.
For instance, one of the reasons Holyf beat IRon Mike, is because Holyf fought smart, he counter-punched on flaws such as Mikes slack right hands in later rounds. Evander's qualities neutralised Mike's strengths. However, Theres no way Ruiz would beat Tyson, but Ruiz did beat Holyf (maybe becos he was out of his prime) We will never know who was better out of alot of the top ten heavyweights, and that is good, cos it brings excitement and a degree of unpredictably. If we knew who was the best, then no-one would care as much about boxing, or be on this great site. :)

Hunna
12-19-2004, 08:52 AM
This question is puzzling and i wanna keep wirting, but i know it will only be dribble. anyways, Holyf vs. Tyson will always one of the most memorable fights next to rumble in the jungle.

tikal
12-19-2004, 10:52 AM
Gotta remember guys, no fighter is totally dominant in a division, because of different fighting styles. Theres always other an opponent out there, who style is awkard and neutralising to a champion's style.
For instance, one of the reasons Holyf beat IRon Mike, is because Holyf fought smart, he counter-punched on flaws such as Mikes slack right hands in later rounds. Evander's qualities neutralised Mike's strengths. However, Theres no way Ruiz would beat Tyson, but Ruiz did beat Holyf (maybe becos he was out of his prime) We will never know who was better out of alot of the top ten heavyweights, and that is good, cos it brings excitement and a degree of unpredictably. If we knew who was the best, then no-one would care as much about boxing, or be on this great site. :)

Well said. I never could understand how Foreman was able to anihilate Frazier and Norton so easily but Ali would always have problems when fighting Norton and Frazier.

Lefthookhappy19
12-19-2004, 09:56 PM
In a P4P sense Holyfields way ahead imo. At their best Tyson was the better heavyweight BUT probably would have still lost to Evander. Maybe Holyfield just had a thing over him.

kadyo
12-20-2004, 01:06 AM
Holyfield beat him twice so Holyfield must be greater.

amaru
12-20-2004, 03:47 PM
im gonna say holyfield. both fighters have fought good/great fighters but when it comes down to it, holyfield beat tyson twice and thats whats seperated holyfield being better than tyson for me.

jabsRstiff
12-21-2004, 09:34 AM
Many of you are forgetting that Holyfield is the naturally smaller man....one who was AWESOME at Cruiserweight.


Tyson was the more explosive, exciting, & appealing fighter.
But Holyfield was better skilled, LOVED TO FIGHT, & proved he could overcome great obstacles.

Tyson's pathetic ear-biting incident....was the ultimate act of a true bully. He got smoked by Holyfield in fight #1, & when he sensed it was going to happen again....he resorted to disgracing himself.
What kind of REAL FIGHTER does that ?

Tyson came up short every time he was truly challenged.

tracylee
12-21-2004, 10:04 AM
Many of you are forgetting that Holyfield is the naturally smaller man....one who was AWESOME at Cruiserweight.


Tyson was the more explosive, exciting, & appealing fighter.
But Holyfield was better skilled, LOVED TO FIGHT, & proved he could overcome great obstacles.

Tyson's pathetic ear-biting incident....was the ultimate act of a true bully. He got smoked by Holyfield in fight #1, & when he sensed it was going to happen again....he resorted to disgracing himself.
What kind of REAL FIGHTER does that ?

Tyson came up short every time he was truly challenged.

I agree completely! He will be remembered by many as the cruiser wt. king! :)

The Italian Stallion
12-21-2004, 06:55 PM
Evander Holyfield > "Iron" Mike Tyson (aka Kid Dynamite)

Holyfield beat him twice. Tyson got so desparate that he had to bite his ear lomb off.

Nuff said

trephination
12-25-2004, 09:49 PM
no doubt holyfield was better

Truth
12-26-2004, 08:54 AM
**** me you've researched that ****. respect :)
holyfield is the better fighter
but tyson will always be the bigger name
both will get to canastota when the time comes.

That's the truth :cool:

MGG
12-26-2004, 04:26 PM
Holyfield
Most fighters who fought Tyson crumbled in fear, not Holyfield.

tracylee
12-26-2004, 04:30 PM
Holyfield
Most fighters who fought Tyson crumbled in fear, not Holyfield.

True! I dont think Holy showed fear to anyone, ever! He will always be a legend to me, no matter how much longer he tries to fight when he plainly shouldnt. I just dont watch him anymore and keep in mind the fighter he use to be ;)

MGG
12-26-2004, 04:36 PM
Holyfield has been one of my favorite fighters since he defeated the Camden Buzzsaw back in the early eighties, with only eleven fights under his belt & for the title to boot. ;)
It is sad to see him still fighting today.

tracylee
12-27-2004, 01:28 PM
Holyfield has been one of my favorite fighters since he defeated the Camden Buzzsaw back in the early eighties, with only eleven fights under his belt & for the title to boot. ;)
It is sad to see him still fighting today.

I was a little late in discovering the fight game, but his was a name that I always knew. When I first got into the sport, I tried to get my hands on all his fights, etc..and have put together a decent "Holy file" full of pics, stats, info, etc. He gave the sport a good name, and I just cant hold his refusal to quit against him like some can; just have way too much respect for him as a fighter and a person ;)

miron_lang
12-28-2004, 02:26 AM
I was a little late in discovering the fight game, but his was a name that I always knew. When I first got into the sport, I tried to get my hands on all his fights, etc..and have put together a decent "Holy file" full of pics, stats, info, etc. He gave the sport a good name, and I just cant hold his refusal to quit against him like some can; just have way too much respect for him as a fighter and a person ;)

NIce post ;)

KJ
12-28-2004, 03:24 AM
I believe prime Tyson to be better fighter that prime holyfield. But Tyson wasted most of his carreer (it started with not training). Holyfield therefore had the better carreer.

markosg19
12-28-2004, 11:57 AM
holyfield by a mile

hambone
12-28-2004, 04:46 PM
Holyfield was ba far the better "pugilist". Tyson the better slugger. It was enjoyable watching the box sport when holyfield boxed. it was, however, great to be a spectater in the gladiatorial ring that was once rules by tyson

Johnny_Rocket
12-30-2004, 08:29 PM
My heart says Tyson but my head says Holyfield. Tyson had speed and power but Holyfields chin seemed to counter that nicely, combined with better ring smarts Holyfield seems to be the better overall.

buff_mike10
01-08-2005, 10:37 PM
Both great champions. All and all Holyfield had a more colorful career. Both at a prime, Tyson would win within 4 rounds by KO. Before Tyson left Rooney and his Cus Damato style, he was unbeatable. Tyson was the youngest man to win the title, and he did it undisputed.

tracylee
01-09-2005, 12:07 PM
NIce post ;)

Thanks man :) Althought Tyson may have been more exciting to some cause of his knockout power..Holyfield was usually the smaller man in the ring while fighting at heavy wt. Therefore there were quite a few fight's where he had to come from behind and that in itself is exciting...just as exciting as any knockout (to my humble self, anyway :o )..As for outside the ring, as for who set the better example and was the better person all around, Holy wins that one hands down (other than that little problem of not keeping his pecker in his pants :D ) but atleast those women were willing (just know that's gonna piss a few of you off...but cant help that!!!)

Sidestep_1
01-09-2005, 08:54 PM
Both men had their prime at different times. Holyfields prime lasted longer, so I pick him.

average_expert
01-12-2005, 07:11 AM
out of ten

tyson holyfield

technique - 10 - 8
power - 10 - 7
speed - 10 - 8
adaptability - 8 - 10
heart - 8 - 10
dirty tactics - 8 - 10
longevity - 7 - 10
entertaining - 10 - 9

overall - 71 - 72

i like them both but holyfeild just tips tyson, mike had great potential, but it was squanded like his money :(
cant judge people on what they might have done imo

average_expert
01-12-2005, 07:11 AM
out of ten

tyson - holyfield

technique - 10 - 8
power - 10 - 7
speed - 10 - 8
adaptability - 8 - 10
heart - 8 - 10
dirty tactics - 8 - 10
longevity - 7 - 10
entertaining - 10 - 9

overall - 71 - 72

i like them both but holyfeild just tips tyson, mike had great potential, but it was squanded like his money :(
cant judge people on what they might have done imo

dodge
01-12-2005, 09:46 PM
Tyson is my favorite fighter all time. I think holy had the better career.

miron_lang
01-13-2005, 01:37 AM
Thanks man :) Althought Tyson may have been more exciting to some cause of his knockout power..Holyfield was usually the smaller man in the ring while fighting at heavy wt. Therefore there were quite a few fight's where he had to come from behind and that in itself is exciting...just as exciting as any knockout (to my humble self, anyway :o )..As for outside the ring, as for who set the better example and was the better person all around, Holy wins that one hands down (other than that little problem of not keeping his pecker in his pants :D ) but atleast those women were willing (just know that's gonna piss a few of you off...but cant help that!!!)

I dont consider Holyfield small jjust because he started @ Cruiser. He is 6'2 and 210 to 215 lbs of Muscle. Toney is not even 6'1 and is quite fat but still a ranked heavyweight, ALSO his chin is as big as anybody :)

Againts each other Holyfield is better, Tyson is the more exciting fighter because fans are always abticipating early KO's.

tracylee
01-13-2005, 12:41 PM
I dont consider Holyfield small jjust because he started @ Cruiser. He is 6'2 and 210 to 215 lbs of Muscle. Toney is not even 6'1 and is quite fat but still a ranked heavyweight, ALSO his chin is as big as anybody :)

Againts each other Holyfield is better, Tyson is the more exciting fighter because fans are always abticipating early KO's.

He may be 6'2, but 210 is NOTHING compared to the typical size and wt. of boxers like Forman, Golota and the others that fought at that time! The majority of them dwarfed him to the point that alot of people betted against him cause of that factor. He was the "underdog" in a hugh number of his fights at heavy wt..even against Tyson, who was shorter than him! Yes, he was all muscle, but he was always so much smaller than the majority of them. Just remember back at that time..the heavy wt. boys were made big and strapping then! :eek: Very few of them were light like Chris Byrd and James Toney (a blown up middle wt.)

adeelr
01-13-2005, 09:37 PM
holifield was good fighter and good sportsman but i dont believe he can match the skills of tyson. tyson himself is responsible for his downfall. Much respect to holyfield

ophqui
01-14-2005, 04:36 PM
It's tyson.
In terms of skills and general boxing abilaty its tyson by far (speaking of both fighters in their primes). Holyfield was a better sportsman and person generally, but he didnt have the power to match tyson imo

tracylee
01-14-2005, 04:39 PM
It's tyson.
In terms of skills and general boxing abilaty its tyson by far (speaking of both fighters in their primes). Holyfield was a better sportsman and person generally, but he didnt have the power to match tyson imo

Having power is not the same as having skill. I always thought that Tyson was more of a power puncher than a technician :confused: therefore Holy had more skill than power..while Tyson had more power than skill.

ophqui
01-14-2005, 05:02 PM
I believe tyson had both in greater quantity than holyfield, tyson was a smart, skillful fighter, people just tend not to acknowledge it because he's such a nutcase

partee
01-15-2005, 03:13 PM
How can there be any question? Holy decimated Tyson twice.

AIR_KENG
01-16-2005, 06:16 AM
i agree, it's tyson for me. he is better in skills and in power... he was just not focused enough when they met that spelled his doom... tyson in his prime is would have demolished a holyfield in his prime...

tracylee
01-16-2005, 01:42 PM
i agree, it's tyson for me. he is better in skills and in power... he was just not focused enough when they met that spelled his doom... tyson in his prime is would have demolished a holyfield in his prime...

Okay, which time was Tyson supposedly not focused enough? Holy beat him and beat him GOOD twice, so was he not only not in his prime :rolleyes: but also was not focused both times??

gwenstefani
01-16-2005, 05:35 PM
Tysons my favorite but I guess holyfield did more as a champ,and better opposition. BUt i think prime for prime tysons better.

Palma
01-16-2005, 06:20 PM
Tyson is better, but Holyfield was smarter.

tracylee
01-16-2005, 06:21 PM
Tyson is better, but Holyfield was smarter.

Hey Palma..where the hell you been? :D

Palma
01-16-2005, 06:26 PM
What's up baby! I have been M.I.A.

Did you have a nice holiday season?

Happy 2005!

tracylee
01-16-2005, 06:30 PM
What's up baby! I have been M.I.A.

Did you have a nice holiday season?

Happy 2005!

Yes you have and you were missed! I had great holidays..how about you? Have you been up to no good?? :D Happy '05, right back at ya!

Palma
01-17-2005, 05:53 PM
Tracy Lee, you're are truly the darling of this site! :D It's great to be back. I have noticed a lot of new faces on the site.

Palma
01-17-2005, 05:53 PM
Tracy Lee, you're truly the darling of this site! :D It's great to be back. I have noticed a lot of new faces on the site.

stuvin
01-17-2005, 06:02 PM
holifields a qualified warrior

tracylee
01-17-2005, 06:05 PM
Tracy Lee, you're truly the darling of this site! :D It's great to be back. I have noticed a lot of new faces on the site.

Wow! You were so sincere in that you posted it twice! :D thank you Palma..and regardless of the newbies, it's good to have you back. I like some new faces too, but the ole familiar ones are great too! ;)

stuvin
01-17-2005, 06:05 PM
he gained his license after the qawi battles

stuvin
01-17-2005, 06:08 PM
how can u not like us new faces were wrinkle free

tracylee
01-17-2005, 06:14 PM
how can u not like us new faces were wrinkle free

lol..I like just about everybody here ;) New faces brings new opinions..so thats cool...I've just missed the banter with palma too :(

jayrichardse
01-30-2005, 11:56 PM
mike tyson was better

bigrealmike
03-31-2005, 12:18 PM
In there Primes Tyson was muuuch better than Holyfield. Guys that Holyfield struggled to beat in 12 rounds Mike anhilated them in 4 rounds or less. But after Tyson got out of prison its a different story.




Tyson had already been KTFO and manhandled by Douglas. Tyson could still beat the Tillmans and the Stewarts of the world, but Holyfield? Huge step up in class for Tyson. "91" Holyfield could take anything. Was tough as nails and fought like hell. Far too tough for the Tyson of '91. Holyfield was like a barnburner compared to the Tyson that Ruddock faced.

czars_salad
03-31-2005, 09:19 PM
holyfield, whoelse?

Shaolin Bushido
03-31-2005, 09:26 PM
holyfield, whoelse?Mike. Holy was the best Cruiser fighting as a heavyweight.

czars_salad
04-01-2005, 04:09 AM
Mike. Holy was the best Cruiser fighting as a heavyweight.
o come on... the real deal made iron mike look like cotton :cool:

kapersky
04-01-2005, 05:16 AM
prime tyson is better than prime holyfield enough said. but overall holyfield is better. if prime tyson vs prime holyfield 10times tyson would win 7-8 of 10 tyson after kicking kevin and lost cus holyfield would win anytimes 10 of 10. so prime tyson is better but overall holyfield.

Warden11
04-01-2005, 04:15 PM
Holyfield all the way and you Tyson lovers (not that I dont like him)dont say becasue Tyson was out of his prime becasue Holyfield was older meaning he was even farther from his prime.

snap the jab
04-02-2005, 01:53 AM
Tyson is better than Holyfield in almost every respect, but in one key area Holyfield has him beat: Holyfield is much stronger on the mental front than tyson, in terms of his heart and his focus in the ring. That's the reason he was able to beat tyson in 1996. Tyson had everything he needed to ko holyfield - if he'd just kept tagging holyfield to the body and thrown some jabs and uppercuts, he would have taken holyfield out. But holyfield frustrated tyson and threw his rhythm off, and once tyson is derailed he just never seems to get it back...

kapersky
04-02-2005, 06:23 AM
Holyfield all the way and you Tyson lovers (not that I dont like him)dont say becasue Tyson was out of his prime becasue Holyfield was older meaning he was even farther from his prime.

holyfield was still in his prime or "second" prime. he got more experience than 91(he havent been test or got hit as hard/much like he did vs bowe))he also went up 12pounds. he was much stronger and focus than tyson. maybe his "second" prime could´nt take hard punches than 91 but like i said much more experience. if you looks at tyson body you could see its much more fat than his prime also much slower and noway he could punch harder than his prime. holyfield also ko moorer after that and survive 2 fights vs lennow lewis´s prime(ll got his number prime or not). how can u say holyfield was farther from his prime?.
:confused:

Warden11
04-02-2005, 04:19 PM
Do you feel his second prime was as good as his first? If not then wouldnt his first prime BE his prime?

Kid Achilles
04-02-2005, 06:19 PM
Kaper,

Holyfield was old by then, period. No one gave him a shot against Tyson, even the guys who thought Holyfield might have pulled it off if he were in his prime. In hindsight it looks like Tyson was the shot fighter at that point, as Hoylfield moved on to do greater things, but that is only because Holyfield was an all around better fighter who was still great even when he had slowed down.

Prime Holyfield would have beaten Tyson even worse than the 96' version, and he would have had a great chance of beating Tyson at any point in his career.

kapersky
04-03-2005, 03:28 AM
Kaper,

Holyfield was old by then, period. No one gave him a shot against Tyson, even the guys who thought Holyfield might have pulled it off if he were in his prime. In hindsight it looks like Tyson was the shot fighter at that point, as Hoylfield moved on to do greater things, but that is only because Holyfield was an all around better fighter who was still great even when he had slowed down.

Prime Holyfield would have beaten Tyson even worse than the 96' version, and he would have had a great chance of beating Tyson at any point in his career.

hmm ok, it looks his second prime was more carefully. i though thats why he seem to be slower. why cant i see 91(prime) holyfield could do better than 1996?. his prime was maybe little faster and could take punches, but noway he could hit harder and more carefull as 1996(he was the first to knock down mercer)and tyson also wasent in his prime. you said prime holyfield would beaten tyson worse?, witch way?, how?, will he jab or and just his speed? and skills?. prime vs prime = tyson win ;)

Kid Achilles
04-03-2005, 03:36 AM
Kapersky,

Are you trying to argue that Holyfield of 96' was a better fighter than the prime version? I just don't agree with you there, not one bit. The reason no one gave Holyfield a chance against Tyson was that they thought he was old. Had that fight happened earlier Tyson wouldn't have been such a big favorite, and Holyfield certainly would have beaten him then.

Holyfield was made to beat Tyson. Strong guy mentally and physically, adequate inside fighter, and he had a great chin. There were things that Tyson's 80's opponents just didn't have. If Holyfield was around in 86', Tyson wouldn't have been champion.

USA4LIFE
04-03-2005, 05:34 AM
Holyfield IMO has more heart than Tyson, thats why i think he is a better b/c even tho you can rely on your power and speed for a while but sometimes you need more than that.

kapersky
04-03-2005, 06:32 AM
Kapersky,

Are you trying to argue that Holyfield of 96' was a better fighter than the prime version? I just don't agree with you there, not one bit. The reason no one gave Holyfield a chance against Tyson was that they thought he was old. Had that fight happened earlier Tyson wouldn't have been such a big favorite, and Holyfield certainly would have beaten him then.

Holyfield was made to beat Tyson. Strong guy mentally and physically, adequate inside fighter, and he had a great chin. There were things that Tyson's 80's opponents just didn't have. If Holyfield was around in 86', Tyson wouldn't have been champion.

they though holyfield was old and had bad heart condition, but did he, in that fight? NO. 1986 tyson would ko easy, tyson have fough fighter that got great chin like holyfield he destory them in his prime. how can u say holyfield was made to beat tyson?, prime vs prime = tyson ko. no chin can survive 2-3 perfect punches from tyson´ prime.

EvilMark
04-03-2005, 09:19 AM
holyfield was better

kapersky
04-03-2005, 10:04 AM
holyfield was better

yep overall he is, but prime vs prime tyson win. :) i am a true tyson fans

Kid Achilles
04-03-2005, 01:02 PM
"i am a true tyson fans"

You sure are!

kapersky
04-03-2005, 01:05 PM
"i am a true tyson fans"

You sure are!

yep thx :p, and prime tyson would win over prime holyfield.

paul750
04-03-2005, 01:10 PM
holyfield knows how to beat tyson, its as simple as that,he's not scared of tyson and he fights back, tyson cannot fight going backwards, holy has his number, just get over it

kapersky
04-03-2005, 02:03 PM
holyfield knows how to beat tyson, its as simple as that,he's not scared of tyson and he fights back, tyson cannot fight going backwards, holy has his number, just get over it

i mean prime vs prime. so u mean douglas also got tyson´s number?. if yes, toney and ruiz got holyfields number. :)

Kid Achilles
04-03-2005, 03:21 PM
That's a terrible comparison. Toney and Ruiz fought Holyfield when he had declined to a point where it was embarassing. Douglas fought Tyson when he was still in his physical prime. I don't care how unprepared Tyson was, he was still in his twenties and in good health. Tyson had no good excuses for losing to Douglas. He just didn't have the heart to stand up to a bigger man who had no fear of him and who followed through on a smart gameplan.

You can make excuses for anyone, watch.

Joe Louis should have been undefeated in his prime. He took Schmeling lightly because Max was over the hill and therefore the loss should be wiped from his record.

Dempsey was inexperienced when he lost to those early fighters and too old when he lost to Tunney. Take all of those losses off his record. Undefeated.

Max Baer didn't take boxing seriously. His record should be 84-0 I don't believe any of his loses were fair because he wasn't the fighter he could have been for those fights.

This is fun!

kapersky
04-04-2005, 03:43 AM
That's a terrible comparison. Toney and Ruiz fought Holyfield when he had declined to a point where it was embarassing. Douglas fought Tyson when he was still in his physical prime. I don't care how unprepared Tyson was, he was still in his twenties and in good health. Tyson had no good excuses for losing to Douglas. He just didn't have the heart to stand up to a bigger man who had no fear of him and who followed through on a smart gameplan.

You can make excuses for anyone, watch.

Joe Louis should have been undefeated in his prime. He took Schmeling lightly because Max was over the hill and therefore the loss should be wiped from his record.

Dempsey was inexperienced when he lost to those early fighters and too old when he lost to Tunney. Take all of those losses off his record. Undefeated.

Max Baer didn't take boxing seriously. His record should be 84-0 I don't believe any of his loses were fair because he wasn't the fighter he could have been for those fights.


This is fun!

its not a bad comparison. it has reason just after he fire kevin rooney he got ko(no training etc). maybe you have right, but i cant see how douglas can beat a prime tyson(prime holyfield got better chance to beat tyson, douglas not even close), douglas had no heart and will. he folds everything when he got hit like he did to holyfield/tucker. douglas just had been in right place in right time.

Bigsexydaddy
04-05-2005, 06:45 PM
I have to say Holyfield was better.

Komandos
04-09-2005, 10:18 AM
In the fight Holifield,but I think Mike Tyson.

Dr.Pugilist
04-11-2005, 01:39 PM
Holyfield was a better boxer and a much smarter fighter. Tyson was vastly more talented. I'm a huge Tyson fan and I think prime vs. prime before Tyson started really cracking up...Tyson wins late round K.O. by working the body.

Overall however it comes down to this...

Holyfield = strong mind

Tyson = weak mind

Holyfield > Tyson

tysonortiz
04-12-2005, 02:37 AM
If they had fought b4 tyson went to jail it wouldve been a different story.

kapersky
04-12-2005, 07:03 AM
If they had fought b4 tyson went to jail it wouldve been a different story.
yep it would,tyson by win by atleast clear ud. why didnt anyone beat him in almost his 4years as champion?, i think its because tyson was there and didnt alout guy like holyfield with strong mind success. i am almost sure it was many guys like holyfield in tyson´s prime but tyson break them. but tyson was slowing down years by years. his prime = invincible

baard
04-12-2005, 07:15 AM
It wasn't just Tyson that was fading, it was also the pressure that Holyfield put on Tyson. Tyson doesn't fight well on the back foot, and that is accactly what he was forced to do in the fight. I do not give Holyfield all the credit for beating him that night on the other hand; it was a combination of both.

czars_salad
04-12-2005, 07:54 AM
If they had fought b4 tyson went to jail it wouldve been a different story.
probably, because tyson was more focus and determined every fight to win. when he fought holyfield he was disoriented by evander's pressures and somewhat dirty tactics, like using his shoulders and elbows to protect himself. you can see it in replays

tysonortiz
04-15-2005, 11:10 AM
Yeah, look at his eye after the second fight. It was NASTY.

smokeyjackson
04-19-2005, 08:17 AM
the only thing that stopped Tyson retiring undefeated was himself, early on in his career he was superb,Tyson would have destroyed Holyfield, and im not saying that Holyfield wasn`t a good fighter, its just that Ali and Louis aside no one else would have lived with Tyson

cms
04-26-2005, 05:05 PM
to really see who is better between tyson and holyfeild lets have them fight, WAIT they already have not once but TWICE, omg!

Konstantin
04-26-2005, 09:32 PM
WTF does everyone keep brining that up for? Holyfeild lost to Ruiz omg! Ruiz is better than Holyfeild. They may have fought twice but Tyson was not with his famed coach and had spent 2 years in jail. And unlike b-hop it didnt help him get any discipline.

kapersky
04-26-2005, 09:50 PM
just look at his career before and after rooney and also look at his training before and after rooney. mike when he was with rooney would knock (1996)mike out worse than holyfield, when holyfield stugger tyson with his righthand holyfield couldnt follow up with hard punches and we all know what a young mike would do when he stugger someone, old mike didnt had the movement and was open for punches.

A.J.
04-27-2005, 03:21 AM
It's hard to say who's better between these two greats. But I would say, it's Tyson. Because most fight fans like to see his fights whether they like him or not.
Agreed 100% :D

Southpaw16
04-28-2005, 10:13 PM
I really don't like this talk about "Tyson wasn't in his prime" when they fought. The truth is, he came out of jail a young man. During the first phase of his career, nobody was able to touch him, and no physical damage happened to him while he was in prison (unless you think he got beaten up lol). When he got out of prison, he was a young man who did not have any physical damage inflicted on him, there is no way he could have been past his prime. The problem is that for the most part he fought nobodies who were scared stiff of him. Razor Ruddock went the distance with a prime Mike Tyson, what happened when Razor Ruddock fought Lennox Lewis? When he blew away Peter McNeilly in the first round everyone was shouting "Iron Mike is back" but as soon as Holyfield beat him later on people started making excuses for him. Holyfield on the other hand, in the early part of his career was in absolute wars. By the time he fought Tyson, he had taken much more physical abuse and was four years older. Holyfield was farther past his prime than Tyson when they fought. As far as losing Rooney, Tyson has had legendary trainers to look after him every step of the way, that does not even come close to a good excuse.

Imira
04-28-2005, 11:38 PM
I really don't like this talk about "Tyson wasn't in his prime" when they fought. The truth is, he came out of jail a young man. During the first phase of his career, nobody was able to touch him, and no physical damage happened to him while he was in prison (unless you think he got beaten up lol). When he got out of prison, he was a young man who did not have any physical damage inflicted on him, there is no way he could have been past his prime. The problem is that for the most part he fought nobodies who were scared stiff of him. Razor Ruddock went the distance with a prime Mike Tyson, what happened when Razor Ruddock fought Lennox Lewis? When he blew away Peter McNeilly in the first round everyone was shouting "Iron Mike is back" but as soon as Holyfield beat him later on people started making excuses for him. Holyfield on the other hand, in the early part of his career was in absolute wars. By the time he fought Tyson, he had taken much more physical abuse and was four years older. Holyfield was farther past his prime than Tyson when they fought. As far as losing Rooney, Tyson has had legendary trainers to look after him every step of the way, that does not even come close to a good excuse.

Sometimes, it's nice to know that I'm not the only one who's saying things like this...

kapersky
04-29-2005, 12:59 AM
I really don't like this talk about "Tyson wasn't in his prime" when they fought. The truth is, he came out of jail a young man. During the first phase of his career, nobody was able to touch him, and no physical damage happened to him while he was in prison (unless you think he got beaten up lol). When he got out of prison, he was a young man who did not have any physical damage inflicted on him, there is no way he could have been past his prime. The problem is that for the most part he fought nobodies who were scared stiff of him. Razor Ruddock went the distance with a prime Mike Tyson, what happened when Razor Ruddock fought Lennox Lewis? When he blew away Peter McNeilly in the first round everyone was shouting "Iron Mike is back" but as soon as Holyfield beat him later on people started making excuses for him. Holyfield on the other hand, in the early part of his career was in absolute wars. By the time he fought Tyson, he had taken much more physical abuse and was four years older. Holyfield was farther past his prime than Tyson when they fought. As far as losing Rooney, Tyson has had legendary trainers to look after him every step of the way, that does not even come close to a good excuse.

we all know from the day tyson fired rooney he was fare away from
his prime, no movement at all. his movement was maybe his most important skill beside power and he lost it. and he had a weak mentally aswell. when you break him once he will fold everything. i still think(though i am almost sure he wasent his psysically shape after seen all documentary about him but still..)he could win over douglas if he had stronger mentally.

its true holyfield was in absolute wars before tyson-fight. but he had stronger mentally and those lost he had didnt broke him and he didnt had big trouble outside the ring. he was maybe in his greatest shape physically vs tyson. i am not saying holyfield is a bad boxer i just think that there was a lot of boxer back then that could win/ko tyson so by that said tyson wasent like his prime(invincible) but he was still very good like when ko bruno. :cool:

Floydmayweather
04-29-2005, 02:33 AM
I say its a toss up. A prime Tyson would have beat Holyfield and i guess im a little biased. I dont like holyfeild and feel he gets away with lots of dirty **** and even wins some fights because of his head butting in the ring.

czars_salad
04-29-2005, 03:01 AM
I say its a toss up. A prime Tyson would have beat Holyfield and i guess im a little biased. I dont like holyfeild and feel he gets away with lots of dirty **** and even wins some fights because of his head butting in the ring.
head butts, elbows, and rabbit punches

Southpaw16
04-29-2005, 02:18 PM
This Tyson myth was started when he terrorized the division in eighties, and people are still determined to keep it going, when it has been proven time and time again that Tyson simply wasn't as good as everyone thought he was. This is what I mean by people being so eager to make excuses for Mike Tyson. There is no other boxer in the entire history of the sport who would be able to have his losses blamed on a trainer being fired. The reason why is because that type of blame is ridiculous, the boxer goes into the ring and fights the match, not the trainer. Seriously, people would not make those excuses for any other fighter in the history of boxing!! The excuses being made for Tyson are: he was past his prime at age 25, he fired his trainer. Tyson is simply a boxer who was great and devastating against mediocre opposition, and not so good against the top level opponents. That is his legacy. As far as the argument about his footwork being gone when he left Rooney, in his early round KOs against Bruce Seldon and Frank Bruno leading up to the Holyfield fight, his footwork looked every bit the same as it did before he went to jail. It didn't look as good in the Holyfield fight because Holyfield was battering him around. His last few fights can be blamed on him being passed his prime because he is actually in his late 30s now, so that is legit.

Kid Achilles
04-29-2005, 03:46 PM
Southpaw,

Welcome to the forum. It's good to see a newcomer with some intelligence and common sense.

kapersky
04-29-2005, 05:47 PM
ok tony tucker,berbick,smith,green all those was bum :rolleyes: and of course he lost his trainer that didnt affect him at all he was also in his prime.

EDIT; why did holyfield got so much credit?, and not toney when he beat holyfield? who also went to heavyweight.

Kid Achilles
04-29-2005, 08:56 PM
Kapersky,

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this but Holyfield was NOT IN HIS PRIME WHEN HE BEAT TYSON. He was further from his physical prime than Tyson was. He was considered a washed up former great with heart trouble. Very few picked him to beat Tyson.

I hope that you can see how a 34 year old former light heavyweight beating a dangerous puncher like Tyson is a lot more impressive than Toney beating up a completely shot Holyfield.

Southpaw16
04-30-2005, 01:24 PM
Yeah, when Toney beat Holyfield he beat a 40 year old man who had been through several brutal wars throughout his career. It is legitimate to say that Holyfield was past his prime. Also, Holyfield went up to heavyweight, and made a long career out of beating people who massively outweighed him. If Toney sticks around the heavyweight division for the next four years, takes on all comers and consistently wins, then he will be considered as great a heavyweight as Holyfield.

Eric Persson
04-30-2005, 07:05 PM
Holyfield fought better men, he beat better men and he beat Tyson. Twice. He was the better fighter, and is a step or two above Tyson.

tracylee
05-01-2005, 01:24 PM
Holyfield fought better men, he beat better men and he beat Tyson. Twice. He was the better fighter, and is a step or two above Tyson.

Good post..he was several steps above Tyson in many different areas (other than this retirement thing, that is :confused: )

shemmue
05-01-2005, 05:22 PM
i have to say that holyfield is better than tyson holyfield was not a natural heavyweight like tyson and he fought wars in the ring unlike tyson .holyfield beat tyson convincingly in their first fight ans was doing the same in the 2nd. until the dq . evander had a whole lot more heart too which in boxing you need . everytime tyson has been a tough fight that is not over in the 1st. couple of rnds. he tries to find a way out of it now .

kapersky
05-01-2005, 07:31 PM
Kapersky,

You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this but Holyfield was NOT IN HIS PRIME WHEN HE BEAT TYSON. He was further from his physical prime than Tyson was. He was considered a washed up former great with heart trouble. Very few picked him to beat Tyson.

I hope that you can see how a 34 year old former light heavyweight beating a dangerous puncher like Tyson is a lot more impressive than Toney beating up a completely shot Holyfield.

ok, was tyson in his prime?. he was further than his physical prime? - anwswer he was maybe in his best physically shape ever. come on guys look at his body. he trained harder than ever for like 6months before the fight. many though he was over but he wasent he still had got a lot left in the tank like when he knock down mercer(mercer who later gave lewis a hell of fight. holyfield had build up solid muscler and he is atleast harder/better shape than a prime tyson even. did anyone look like holfyield?. it was 1on1 and not a bigger guy vs a smaller guy. if lewis had fight tyson instead of holyfield people would say he was over ... and not giving he as much credits as holyfield. :cool:

Kid Achilles
05-01-2005, 07:55 PM
I'm not talking about his physique. I'm talking about him being 34 years old and having delayed reflexes. He absorbed a lot of punishment in his fights with Riddick Bowe. Those fights took a lot out of the two of them.

Tyson's skills had eroded somewhat but he had just turned 30 and was in the middle of his physical prime. Holyfield beating Tyson was a huge upset and a great night for boxing. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't understand that.

kapersky
05-01-2005, 08:11 PM
I'm not talking about his physique. I'm talking about him being 34 years old and having delayed reflexes. He absorbed a lot of punishment in his fights with Riddick Bowe. Those fights took a lot out of the two of them.

Tyson's skills had eroded somewhat but he had just turned 30 and was in the middle of his physical prime. Holyfield beating Tyson was a huge upset and a great night for boxing. You seem to be the only one here who doesn't understand that.

i understand all wars holyfield had before that fight,it was a great night and also that holyfield had turned 34 but 34 is nothing for a guy like holyfield who was in his best shape as a heavyweight. tyson on the other hand looks like 30-35 when he fough douglas image how he actually was vs holyfield. tyson was fare away from his prime than holyfield. i cant see how a prime holyfield would do better than that holyfield.

Kid Achilles
05-01-2005, 10:39 PM
"tyson was fare away from his prime than holyfield. i cant see how a prime holyfield would do better than that holyfield."

Well try to imagine harder.

kovy
05-01-2005, 11:43 PM
Holyfield was the superior boxer. And he was a poor style matchup for Tyson. But the young Tyson had better boxing skills than the old Tyson. Ultimately you never know with a one punch guy like Tyson. On any given night he could beat anybody.

Foreman
05-01-2005, 11:53 PM
Holyfield is "better" than Tyson on just about every level. Holyfield had a better career, by fighting better fighters and having some incredible fights.
Holyfield was a better champion. He doesn't curse all the time on camera, doesn't wig out on a fairly regular basis, doesn't rape women, doesn't want to eat Lennox's children, doesn't beat up motorists, etc.
Holyfield was a better fighter. He could box and slug it out. Although he doesn't possess Tyson's punching power, history has proven that big punchers are a one trick pony. Holyfield was more well rounded in the sweet science.
Holyfield beat Tyson...twice. Some people opine that if Tyson had Holyfield in "86, '88, '98 or whenever that Tyson would have won. Tyson had Holyfield and got more than he bargained for. If they fight 100 times, Holyfield wins 99 of them, maybe more.
Holyfield parted company with longtime trainer Lou Duva and still went on to many more successful years, including beating Tyson. So Holyfield is better at adapting and taking responsibility for HIMSELF. Ultimately, Holyfield did what he had to do to be a great fighter. Tyson did not.
Holyfield has been blamed for headbutting etc. Look back and see how many other times Tyson has been cut. I guess those fighters were cheating too. Why is it that Holyfield is dirty but Hagler and Duran were tough fighters who did the same thing? Sometimes due to styles and the respective sizes of the fighters headbutts are more common. Why is Tyson the only one to complain?

When you plunk your $49.95 down on a fight, you are going to see a much better fight with Holyfield. You may see a spectacular KO by Tyson against some club fighter with snot bubbles and piss running down his leg or you may see Tyson fold against any type of stiff competition.

All in all, it's no contest. Holyfield is much better. Tyson isn't in the top twenty all time and Holyfield is knocking on the top ten.

Now some might think I hate Tyson, which isn't true. Tremendously disappointed is more like it. I've followed him from the very beginning and thought that he could have been in the top three all time if he did what he should have done. Even though he knew all about boxing history and the pifalls that befell other fighters, instead of avoiding them, he fell into every single one of them and even created a couple new ones. Tyson is probably the most tragic figure in the history of boxing instead of being one of the greatest.

onetwopunch
05-02-2005, 02:34 AM
Well Tyson was a better Heavy weight, back in 88 when they were suppose to fight Tyson would of destroyed Evander, But p4p Holyfield was better becuase he fought better oponents at LH and HW.

kapersky
05-02-2005, 11:42 AM
Holyfield is "better" than Tyson on just about every level. Holyfield had a better career, by fighting better fighters and having some incredible fights.
Holyfield was a better champion. He doesn't curse all the time on camera, doesn't wig out on a fairly regular basis, doesn't rape women, doesn't want to eat Lennox's children, doesn't beat up motorists, etc.
Holyfield was a better fighter. He could box and slug it out. Although he doesn't possess Tyson's punching power, history has proven that big punchers are a one trick pony. Holyfield was more well rounded in the sweet science.
Holyfield beat Tyson...twice. Some people opine that if Tyson had Holyfield in "86, '88, '98 or whenever that Tyson would have won. Tyson had Holyfield and got more than he bargained for. If they fight 100 times, Holyfield wins 99 of them, maybe more.
Holyfield parted company with longtime trainer Lou Duva and still went on to many more successful years, including beating Tyson. So Holyfield is better at adapting and taking responsibility for HIMSELF. Ultimately, Holyfield did what he had to do to be a great fighter. Tyson did not.
Holyfield has been blamed for headbutting etc. Look back and see how many other times Tyson has been cut. I guess those fighters were cheating too. Why is it that Holyfield is dirty but Hagler and Duran were tough fighters who did the same thing? Sometimes due to styles and the respective sizes of the fighters headbutts are more common. Why is Tyson the only one to complain?

When you plunk your $49.95 down on a fight, you are going to see a much better fight with Holyfield. You may see a spectacular KO by Tyson against some club fighter with snot bubbles and piss running down his leg or you may see Tyson fold against any type of stiff competition.

All in all, it's no contest. Holyfield is much better. Tyson isn't in the top twenty all time and Holyfield is knocking on the top ten.

Now some might think I hate Tyson, which isn't true. Tremendously disappointed is more like it. I've followed him from the very beginning and thought that he could have been in the top three all time if he did what he should have done. Even though he knew all about boxing history and the pifalls that befell other fighters, instead of avoiding them, he fell into every single one of them and even created a couple new ones. Tyson is probably the most tragic figure in the history of boxing instead of being one of the greatest.

maybe from middle-late tysons career looks terrible but it was different story in the begining. holyfield always been great fighter but his peak wasent even close to tysons peak.he coudlnt ko holmes and bowe whope him easy. i think if bowe wouldnt being lazy and trained like he did in the first fight he wouldnt ko holyfield in the rematch and his career would be over.
its all bad in late of tysons career but in beginging in his peak he could ko anyone in history even and looks better than ali.

Southpaw16
05-07-2005, 04:00 AM
OK, I'm still hearing a lot of this "Tyson wasn't in his prime" stuff. I have revealed my reason in earlier posts why I think that is rubbish. But for those of you who insist on keeping with the argument that the late 80s Tyson was different and would have beaten Holyfield: explain why he got whipped by Buster Douglas in 1990. No great heavyweight has ever been beaten by someone like Buster Douglas in their prime. Don't say Leon Spinks versus Ali, because Ali was 36 and nowhere near his prime. Lennox Lewis's losses were lucky one punch knockouts which he emphatically avenged. Tyson got outclassed and beaten down for several rounds before being knocked out. This is usually where Tyson fans start claiming it was because he fired his coach.

kapersky
05-07-2005, 07:21 AM
OK, I'm still hearing a lot of this "Tyson wasn't in his prime" stuff. I have revealed my reason in earlier posts why I think that is rubbish. But for those of you who insist on keeping with the argument that the late 80s Tyson was different and would have beaten Holyfield: explain why he got whipped by Buster Douglas in 1990. No great heavyweight has ever been beaten by someone like Buster Douglas in their prime. Don't say Leon Spinks versus Ali, because Ali was 36 and nowhere near his prime. Lennox Lewis's losses were lucky one punch knockouts which he emphatically avenged. Tyson got outclassed and beaten down for several rounds before being knocked out. This is usually where Tyson fans start claiming it was because he fired his coach.

so you mean it wasent because of it?, watch documentary fallen warrior, mike tyson. i think kevin rooney know more about tyson than all of us togheter. i dont like tyson more than holyfield but its true than from the day he fired rooney he hasent trained like he should.

Imira
05-07-2005, 08:23 AM
If Tyson doesn't train properly it's his own damn fault.

Here's the reality check: Holyfield outshines Tyson by leaps and bounds. Better quality of opposition. Never paid step aside money to tougher opponents. Never dropped belts to avoid tougher opponents. More heart and far more skill. (I find it intriguing that even though he beat Tyson twice, while Tyson was in his prime, his fans refuse to believe this) And he has accomplished more than Tyson. Tyson only has one thing over Holyfield and that's punching power.

Southpaw16
05-07-2005, 05:14 PM
I am definitely saying that his loss to Buster Douglas was not because he fired Rooney. No boxer in history has every been able to use firing his coach as an excuse for losing. With a boxer like Tyson, this claim is even more invalid because his gameplan was the same every time, cut the ring off and knock the guy out.

paulmmv
05-07-2005, 05:39 PM
i would hafe to say holyfield

kapersky
05-07-2005, 06:06 PM
he was on heavy medication before douglas fight. all his anger, movement was gone. if he didnt had that anger fighting instict and movement vs smith,green or tony tucker he would got knock out. all those three only landed 1 good punch on tyson and almost stagger him. give any top fighter wrong medication he would fall like tyson
and his mentally was kind of fu* even when cust was around. whatever it was tyson had all skilled needed to be undefeat but he f* it up. :(

The Troll
05-07-2005, 06:17 PM
Holyfield beat Tyson soundly and definitively, and in a dismantling fashion, and that is all there is to it.

If mike had a solid head on his shoulders and was not psycho than he might had the potential to be better than Holyfield and win the Holyfield vs Tyson rematch but he doesn't. Mike Tyson is a nutcase, Evander Holyfield fights his best against the best opponents and is very strong in mind.

Shaolin Bushido
05-07-2005, 06:54 PM
Holy beat him soundly, yes, but I know that most "fans" regard Tyson much higher on lists of heavyweight rankings. (All time)

Truth
05-08-2005, 10:49 AM
Holyfield caught the post prison version of Mike Tyson who didn't use head movement or reflexes. The 1990's version of Tyson was easy for a great boxer like Holyfield. Keep in mind though that Holyfield headbutted Mike in both fights and clinched alot. Thats illeagal, but it doesn't matter now. Holyfield was better but Tyson made a bigger impact of the sport.

The Troll
05-08-2005, 11:47 AM
Holyfield caught the post prison version of Mike Tyson who didn't use head movement or reflexes. The 1990's version of Tyson was easy for a great boxer like Holyfield. Keep in mind though that Holyfield headbutted Mike in both fights and clinched alot. Thats illeagal, but it doesn't matter now. Holyfield was better but Tyson made a bigger impact of the sport.



Mike Tyson was just as good as ever when he came out of prison. He knocked out Frank Bruno who was WBC champion at the time even way earlier than he did the first time before prison, plus he Took Seldon the WBA champion down in 1 round. He took Buster Mathis Jr down in like 3 rounds. He took #7 contender Peter McNeely down in 1. He looked like the old Mike Tyson until he ran into Holyfield. In all Mike's fights after prison he weighed in at below 220 pounds. When he fought Holyfield he came in at 222, he did not train his best. Everytime Tyson looses he weighs in at over 220 pounds. When he fought Douglas was one of the first times I ever saw him weigh in at over 220. His optimal weight 216 217 218. You would not think that small amount of pounds would make a big difference for a heavyweight but its just a freak fact that in all Tyson's losses he weighs in at over 220.

At the time Tyson and Holyfield fought it was generally thought that Mike Tyson was as good as ever by the boxing press and public since Tyson was a 7-1 money favorite over Holyfield.

Shaolin Bushido
05-08-2005, 07:40 PM
Mike Tyson was just as good as ever when he came out of prison. He knocked out Frank Bruno who was WBC champion at the time even way earlier than he did the first time before prison, plus he Took Seldon the WBA champion down in 1 round. He took Buster Mathis Jr down in like 3 rounds. He took #7 contender Peter McNeely down in 1. He looked like the old Mike Tyson until he ran into Holyfield. In all Mike's fights after prison he weighed in at below 220 pounds. When he fought Holyfield he came in at 222, he did not train his best. Everytime Tyson looses he weighs in at over 220 pounds. When he fought Douglas was one of the first times I ever saw him weigh in at over 220. His optimal weight 216 217 218. You would not think that small amount of pounds would make a big difference for a heavyweight but its just a freak fact that in all Tyson's losses he weighs in at over 220.

At the time Tyson and Holyfield fought it was generally thought that Mike Tyson was as good as ever by the boxing press and public since Tyson was a 7-1 money favorite over Holyfield.

LOL, "beat Seldon". More like he managed to make contact before The Atlantic City Express could get to the floor!

Honestly ....

The Troll
05-08-2005, 07:53 PM
LOL, "beat Seldon". More like he managed to make contact before The Atlantic City Express could get to the floor!

Honestly ....


I does not matter what you say about the Seldon fight, He dismantled Bruno the WBC champion at the time even faster and better than he did the first time before prison, then add Buster Mathis Jr to the list who he KO'd in 3, and #7 contender McNeely who he KO'd in 1. Tyson did look good as ever after coming out of prison there is no denying it. Holyfield was a 7-1 underdog in the first fight against Tyson and really is all there is too it. I just remember predicitng Holyfield would win and everybody slagging me off but then apologizing later on because I was right, everybody I know I remember was picking Tyson to destroy the "blown up cruiserweight" Evander Holyfield.

Warhawk46
05-08-2005, 09:18 PM
Mike Tyson versus Evander Holyfield...

Who was a better fighter? When was each's respective "prime"?

Mike Tyson blossomed early. He was in his prime from 1986-1988. These were his years being trained by Kevin Rooney. Before anyone makes an asinine post about trainers having nothing to do with anything....shut up. Rooney had everything to do with Mike Tyson's success. Mike doesnt trust people, and he did trust Kevin Rooney. They had a mutual respect, and Tyson hasnt really respected a trainer since then with the exception of Freddie Roach, or maybe Jeff Fenech now.

Holyfield's prime was later than Tyson's. This was partly due to his greater work ethic. Holyfield fought Riddick Bowe in his prime. He was considered old and had a "reported" bad heart when he fought Tyson. Tyson was hyped after prison by Don King, and he was made to look unbeatable. He fought bums. McNeely was terrible. Mathis Jr was fat joke. Frank Bruno in the rematch was far from the Frank Bruno of their first fight. Bruno fought like a scared kid against Tyson in the rematch. Tyson was hyped after prison, but in reality he was far removed from his prime, much, much father from it than Holyfield was from his prime.

Had the two fought in 1991, it might have been much different, even though by that time Mike Tyson had abandoned his headmovement/defense and combination punching in exchange for mediocre one-shot headhunting.

Take a prime Mike Tyson and have him face a prime Evander Holyfield, Tyson wins via late TKO. The referee would be forced to stop the fight because Evander would take combinations to the head.

One more point: Evander gets called a small heavyweight, but really Mike Tyson was smaller. Tyson is 5'11", 216 lbs, and 71" reach in his prime. Holyfield is 6'2", around 210 lbs, and has a 77" reach. Holyfield and Tyson were both all muscle in their primes (and Holyfield still is today), and both were small heavyweights. However, Mike Tyson was even smaller.

Shaolin Bushido
05-08-2005, 10:10 PM
I does not matter what you say about the Seldon fight, He dismantled Bruno the WBC champion at the time even faster and better than he did the first time before prison, then add Buster Mathis Jr to the list who he KO'd in 3, and #7 contender McNeely who he KO'd in 1. Tyson did look good as ever after coming out of prison there is no denying it. Holyfield was a 7-1 underdog in the first fight against Tyson and really is all there is too it. I just remember predicitng Holyfield would win and everybody slagging me off but then apologizing later on because I was right, everybody I know I remember was picking Tyson to destroy the "blown up cruiserweight" Evander Holyfield.

I thought he'd kill Holy too! Just remembered that Seldon fight; he's even admitted that he's had trouble living down that loss.

He didn't redeem himself too well, losing to that guy with the big ole ***** tits by basically surrendering again.

Warden11
05-08-2005, 10:33 PM
If Tyson was so FAR from his prime and Holyfield was so close then why was Tyson so favoured to win leading up to the fight?

kapersky
05-08-2005, 10:53 PM
-> don king <-

A.J.
05-09-2005, 04:05 AM
1000% Mike Tyson.

run_for_your_effing_life
05-09-2005, 06:52 AM
to EZ tyson

kapersky
05-09-2005, 08:05 AM
One more point: Evander gets called a small heavyweight, but really Mike Tyson was smaller. Tyson is 5'11", 216 lbs, and 71" reach in his prime. Holyfield is 6'2", around 210 lbs, and has a 77" reach. Holyfield and Tyson were both all muscle in their primes (and Holyfield still is today), and both were small heavyweights. However, Mike Tyson was even smaller.

yep, why is everyone saying holyfield is samller than tyson?
:argue:, holyfield is much bigger than tyson. maybe he was a cruiserweight(long time ago)but he is a natural heavyweight not like james toney. i think holyfield that night would beat his prime. his prime maybe was little faster but...

RockyMarciano
05-09-2005, 08:31 AM
I cnat believe it!!! after all this time people on boxing scene have been loving tyson holding him on high...THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS THREAD. Holyfield was the man...i am so tired of people feeling pity for tyson and saying he is good.....2 words for that....danny williams.....ha!

El Jesus
05-09-2005, 11:07 AM
If they had fought b4 tyson went to jail it wouldve been a different story.


the circumstances around tyson dictate weather he would win or not. Cus/rooney Tyson destroys any heavyweight on this planet, not only would he be focused, but hed be all buisness. 91 tyson after cus and after the shock in toyko against holyfield, im not sure, i mean...looking at those razor ruddock fights, it seemed like he could go the distance and grind it out if nessecary.

El Jesus
05-09-2005, 11:12 AM
I cnat believe it!!! after all this time people on boxing scene have been loving tyson holding him on high...THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS THREAD. Holyfield was the man...i am so tired of people feeling pity for tyson and saying he is good.....2 words for that....danny williams.....ha!

its not a matter of feeling pity, its a matter of understanding the logic of his circumstances, and by mentioning the danny williams fight, you also prove you really havent been reading the thread.

RockyMarciano
05-09-2005, 11:17 AM
lol...screw mike tyson

The Troll
05-09-2005, 01:01 PM
Mike Tyson versus Evander Holyfield...

Who was a better fighter? When was each's respective "prime"?

Mike Tyson blossomed early. He was in his prime from 1986-1988. These were his years being trained by Kevin Rooney. Before anyone makes an asinine post about trainers having nothing to do with anything....shut up. Rooney had everything to do with Mike Tyson's success. Mike doesnt trust people, and he did trust Kevin Rooney. They had a mutual respect, and Tyson hasnt really respected a trainer since then with the exception of Freddie Roach, or maybe Jeff Fenech now.

Holyfield's prime was later than Tyson's. This was partly due to his greater work ethic. Holyfield fought Riddick Bowe in his prime. He was considered old and had a "reported" bad heart when he fought Tyson. Tyson was hyped after prison by Don King, and he was made to look unbeatable. He fought bums. McNeely was terrible. Mathis Jr was fat joke. Frank Bruno in the rematch was far from the Frank Bruno of their first fight. Bruno fought like a scared kid against Tyson in the rematch. Tyson was hyped after prison, but in reality he was far removed from his prime, much, much father from it than Holyfield was from his prime.

Had the two fought in 1991, it might have been much different, even though by that time Mike Tyson had abandoned his headmovement/defense and combination punching in exchange for mediocre one-shot headhunting.

Take a prime Mike Tyson and have him face a prime Evander Holyfield, Tyson wins via late TKO. The referee would be forced to stop the fight because Evander would take combinations to the head.

One more point: Evander gets called a small heavyweight, but really Mike Tyson was smaller. Tyson is 5'11", 216 lbs, and 71" reach in his prime. Holyfield is 6'2", around 210 lbs, and has a 77" reach. Holyfield and Tyson were both all muscle in their primes (and Holyfield still is today), and both were small heavyweights. However, Mike Tyson was even smaller.

During Holyfield's short retirement he put on tons of weight and muscle mass. When he first went to heavyweight and in his early years at heavyweight he weighed in at like 208 but he did an amamzing job conditioning himself and he actually did weigh more than Tyson by 1996 but it was all muscle mass. Compare Holyfield's pecs in 1992 and 1996 amazing difference.

kapersky
05-10-2005, 08:56 PM
During Holyfield's short retirement he put on tons of weight and muscle mass. When he first went to heavyweight and in his early years at heavyweight he weighed in at like 208 but he did an amamzing job conditioning himself and he actually did weigh more than Tyson by 1996 but it was all muscle mass. Compare Holyfield's pecs in 1992 and 1996 amazing difference.

yep holyfield 1992 looks like a crusierweight and they said it was his prime?(yeah maybe little faster)
:confused:, holyfield 1996 didnt had any problem heart,size what so ever, he was 100% motivated. if he fough his prime(when he fough bowe) holyfield 1996 would win by ko no doubt. how he could put so much mass on in that short time was because he used roids. :fingersx:

Southpaw16
05-14-2005, 03:23 PM
Mike Tyson versus Evander Holyfield...

Who was a better fighter? When was each's respective "prime"?

Mike Tyson blossomed early. He was in his prime from 1986-1988. These were his years being trained by Kevin Rooney. Before anyone makes an asinine post about trainers having nothing to do with anything....shut up. Rooney had everything to do with Mike Tyson's success. Mike doesnt trust people, and he did trust Kevin Rooney. They had a mutual respect, and Tyson hasnt really respected a trainer since then with the exception of Freddie Roach, or maybe Jeff Fenech now.

Holyfield's prime was later than Tyson's. This was partly due to his greater work ethic. Holyfield fought Riddick Bowe in his prime. He was considered old and had a "reported" bad heart when he fought Tyson. Tyson was hyped after prison by Don King, and he was made to look unbeatable. He fought bums. McNeely was terrible. Mathis Jr was fat joke. Frank Bruno in the rematch was far from the Frank Bruno of their first fight. Bruno fought like a scared kid against Tyson in the rematch. Tyson was hyped after prison, but in reality he was far removed from his prime, much, much father from it than Holyfield was from his prime.

Had the two fought in 1991, it might have been much different, even though by that time Mike Tyson had abandoned his headmovement/defense and combination punching in exchange for mediocre one-shot headhunting.

Take a prime Mike Tyson and have him face a prime Evander Holyfield, Tyson wins via late TKO. The referee would be forced to stop the fight because Evander would take combinations to the head.

One more point: Evander gets called a small heavyweight, but really Mike Tyson was smaller. Tyson is 5'11", 216 lbs, and 71" reach in his prime. Holyfield is 6'2", around 210 lbs, and has a 77" reach. Holyfield and Tyson were both all muscle in their primes (and Holyfield still is today), and both were small heavyweights. However, Mike Tyson was even smaller.

Actually I'm going to once again repeat that firing a trainer is not an excuse for losing a fight, regardless of how asinine you think the comments are. Name one other fighter in the history of boxing who you would blame his losses on a trainer being fired. The mutual trust and respect thing is complete BS, Tyson also supposedly had a great relationship with Ronnie Shields before he was knocked out by Lennox Lewis. In fact at the time he is with the trainers, Tyson always supposedly has a great relationship with them. Of course once he is exposed for the one millionth time, Tyson fans blame it on him not having Rooney in his corner. And it isn't like Rooney died a tragic death, Tyson fired his *ss. Why would he fire him if there was so much trust and respect? Let me guess, here comes a Don King conspiracy theory. In that case, why hasn't he at any point in his long career rehired Rooney if Rooney is such a fvkin miracle man? And Tyson winning a late round TKO against Holyfield?!! There is no way in a million years Tyson could ever even win late rounds against Holyfield, at any point in his career, much less knock him out.

The Troll
05-14-2005, 05:33 PM
yep holyfield 1992 looks like a crusierweight and they said it was his prime?(yeah maybe little faster)
:confused:, holyfield 1996 didnt had any problem heart,size what so ever, he was 100% motivated. if he fough his prime(when he fough bowe) holyfield 1996 would win by ko no doubt. how he could put so much mass on in that short time was because he used roids. :fingersx:

Actually I was wrong that Holyfield was bigger than Tyson when they fought. In the first fight Holyfield weighed in at 215 Tyson weighed in at 222.

kapersky
05-14-2005, 06:21 PM
Actually I was wrong that Holyfield was bigger than Tyson when they fought. In the first fight Holyfield weighed in at 215 Tyson weighed in at 222.

but all those few weight was fat, tyson never looks so "soft" in any fight beside vs douglas. from his legs to his body was all fat not the usually bone and muscle mass. his hand(biceps) still looks good but overall he looks fat/soft. in douglas fight, douglas who usually looks fat and soft looks much harder or better train than tyson. tyson didnt train for his style, he is shorter he must have the movement if not he got ko prime or not. from the day he fired rooney he didnt train like he used to or sparr, like he used to. if you are not toney with his defence you got to train harder and be in best shape psycally and mentally, tyson didnt had either of them. i am not saying prime tyson would ko holyfield easy, he would still had to work all the fight and eventually win the fight. i still think holyfield 1996 was his prime, i mean who did he beat?, tillis after fough tyson for years, holmes far away from prime, and old foreman. but vs bowe he got knock down and won over a fat bowe. but after his heart condition he fough and won over mercer, tyson, moorer, and gave hard rematch against lewis. this is what i think is holyfields prime
when he fough at crusierweiht there was his prime, and around 1995-1999 and not like everybody say 1992 (:mad:)

EXIGE
05-14-2005, 09:28 PM
Tyson is better than Hollyfield end of. Its not all about the paper and even if it was Tyson would win.

The Italian Stallion
05-15-2005, 01:29 AM
Why do people still ask this question?
All Mikey T. could do is brawl, Holyfield could brawl and box.

Mikey never fought Bowe, remember that.

The Troll
05-15-2005, 04:49 AM
Why do people still ask this question?
.


The question is

Why Do People ask this question



Mike Tyson age 29 weight 222 pounds WBA heavyweight champion and(recently vacated the WBC Heavyweight title) vs Evander Holyfield the challenger age 34 weight 215 pounds.

Winner Evander Holyfied TKO 11 Tyson down in the 6th.

Southpaw16
05-15-2005, 05:43 PM
According to some people that doesn't count because he fired Kevin Rooney.

kapersky
05-15-2005, 05:50 PM
According to some people that doesn't count because he fired Kevin Rooney.

ok but had he ever been the same sens he fired rooney?, where is the movement the killerinstict?, when he fough buster he hugs more than ever and looks scared. but with rooney he looks like he wanted to kill everyone he face, and always was in shape not necessecary mentaly but psysically. all fighter will always lose soon or later but i think he would ko douglas with rooney and ko ruddock twice..and perhaps lost by ud vs bowe or holyfield but he would still stagger holyfield a lot more times than he did 1996 if he had rooney.

Warden11
05-15-2005, 07:38 PM
According to some people that doesn't count because he fired Kevin Rooney.


lol.......

RastaSmoker
06-18-2005, 05:45 AM
Both men were great fighters with impressive undefeated streaks.

Holyfield's undefeated streak 1984-1992:

28-0 (22) overall
10-0 (7) in World title fights
11-0 (7) vs. World Champions
4-0 (1) vs. Hall of Famers fighters (Qawi x2, Foreman, and Holmes)

Tyson's undefeated streak 1984-1990:

37-0 (33) overall
10-0 (8) in World title fights
9-0 (7) vs. World Champions
2-0 (2) vs. Hall of Fame fighters (Holmes and M. Spinks)

Let's see who they beat during these streaks.

Holyfield-

The World champions-

Tyrone Booze W8 (WBO CW champ)
Dwight Qawi x2 W15 and KO4 (WBC LHW and WBA CW champ)
Ossie Ocasio KO11 KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Ricky Parkey KO3 (IBF CW champ)
Carlos DeLeon KO8 (WBC CW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO7 (WBC HW champ)
Michael Dokes KO10 (WBA HW champ)
James Douglas KO3 (Lineal HW champ)
George Foreman W12 (2x Lineal HW champ)
Larry Holmes (Lineal HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Anthony Davis KO4
Henry Tillman KO7
James Tillis KO5
Bert Cooper KO7

Some of the other guys-

Jesse Shelby KO3
Adilson Rodrigues KO2
Alex Stewart KO8

Tyson-

The World champs-

Alfonso Ratliff KO2 (WBC CW champ)
Trevor Berbick KO2 (WBC HW champ)
James Smith W12 (WBA HW champ)
Pinklon Thomas KO6 (WBC HW champ)
Tony Tucker W12 (IBF HW champ)
Larry Holmes KO4 (Lineal HW champ)
Tony Tubbs KO2 (WBA HW champ)
Michael Spinks KO1 (Lineal LHW and HW champ)
Frank Bruno KO5 (WBC HW champ)

The World title challengers-

Jesse Ferguson KO6
James Tillis W10
Marvis Frazier KO1
Tyrell Biggs KO7
Carl Williams KO1


Impressive info but a really stupid question because there is no question holyfield is better than mike tyson. I got the thing that proves holyfield is better
TYSON SAID I QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some of the other guys-

Reggie Gross KO1
Jose Ribalta KO10

Both records look very good.

Let's see what they did after their first loss.

Holyfield-

10-7-2 (3) overall and 6-5 (2) in World title fights. Two of the losses are by KO. He beat 3 of the 6 men that beat him, he drew with another.

Tyson-

13-5 (11) 2NC overall and 2-4 (2) in World title fights. Four of the losses are by KO. He has no wins over any of the men that beat him.

What's your opinion my friends?


Impressive info but a really stupid question because there is no question holyfield is better than mike tyson. I got the thing that proves holyfield is better
TYSON SAID I QUIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not to metion holyfield whooped tysons ass

Fistof Fury
06-19-2005, 08:59 AM
A discussion about which fighter waas better is never going to get a completely straightforward and satisfactory answer. There are many variables that need to be taken into consideration. And, of course, it will more often than not be one persons opinion against another.

Most of these have already been mentioned.

I think that the question should be re-framed into many questions, then an overall picture can be gained. Who was/had the better .....?

Examples:

Who was the harder puncher? IMO Tyson in his early career
Who had a better chin? IMO Holyfield
Who had the better boxing skills? IMO Holyfield
Who fought a better quality of opposition? IMO Holyfield


Etc etc.....

It's hard to get a definitive answer. But if I was to aanswer a range of questions like this honestly about the above two fighters then I wold have to say that Holyfield was the better all-round fighter. And that's what boxing is all about. You have to have all the correct ingredients to be good for a sustained period of time.

Boxing record is also important. but only part of the picture.

Eken
06-19-2005, 04:14 PM
Holyfield is clearly the better, he has beaten Tyson twice!

sonofisis
06-20-2005, 10:38 PM
Tyson hands down...

Jack H
06-21-2005, 12:20 AM
:mad: Prorock, great analysis backed up with facts. My answer to that

question is mostly subjective. Mike Tyson had "awe inspiring

appeal," Holyfield did not. Early to middle of his career, Mike

Tyson basically knocked everyone out who faced him. In addition,

those knockouts were incredibly entertaining (Holmes,Thomas,

Berbick,Frasier,Spinks,etc.) When Mike Tyson finally lost to

Douglas it was front page news. People cared about and followed

heavyweight boxing in the 80s and 90s because of him. Holyfield

on the other hand, although fighting some memorable fights

(Douglas,Foreman,Bowe) never had the star power and "awe

inspiring appeal" like Mike Tyson. When Holyfield lost for the

first time it wasn't a really big deal. And also, many of Holy

fields fights don't end with an exciting Ko like most of Tyson's

whether it be him or his oppenent. :mad:


I agree. Nice work Prorock.

And nice response by Boston Guy. Tyson was more exiciting. The thing is that both fighters peaked at different stages. One could definitely argue that Holyfield was technically better. But i'm still of the opinion that if TYSON and HOLYFIELD fought each other on their best days, Tyson would knock Holyfield out

Slipx
06-24-2005, 06:11 AM
holyfield was better .

tyson was excellent physically, but sucked mentally..
holyfield was above average physically, and excellent mentally

so you see evander had more balance in his game, where tyson had nothing upstairs ..likely because evander was raised correctly

copper
06-29-2009, 05:10 AM
wait till you see me .......................... METEOR.