View Full Version : Tyson/Holyfield debate


VibesMan
10-16-2009, 10:31 AM
Firstly, hello. Lurked with interest and amusement for some time now and decided I'd sign up and post.

My first attempt at a thread was sparked off by the various Tyson threads on here mostly revolving around how underated/overated he is. Seems a lot of these boil down to the Holyfield fight and the fact a post prime Holy beat a post prime Tyson so therefore a prime Holy beats a prime Tyson.

I personally don't see it that way and my question is this....

Mike fights Holyfield after the Douglas fight and during the Holy period of fighting Holmes/Foreman/Cooper.

Who wins and does it change the future for Mike??

My take is Tyson's too much at this stage for Evander. I don't feel Holy really hit his stride as a Heavy until after the first Bowe fight and if Cooper could hurt him, Mike smokes him.

BTW, Mike maybe one of my favourite fighters but I'm not in the business of confusing "favourite" with "greatest of all time".

THE REEDô
10-16-2009, 10:32 AM
Welcome to the board.

Mersey
10-16-2009, 11:11 AM
I think Mike was the better fighter if you compare them prime 4 prime. It's just that Holyfield acheived alot more and has a much better resume than Mike.

I have Holyfield higher on my ATG heavyweights list.

VibesMan
10-16-2009, 11:19 AM
Agree with the first point and change my mind regularly on the 2nd. Mike brought unbelievable drama to the game, looked unstoppable early doors and remains, to my mind, the most explosive fighter I've ever seen with that combo of speed, movement and power. Add that to being the youngest Champ and that rise to being undisputed I think he deserves a spot in the all time top 10 heavies.

No comparison in terms of longevity and spread of achievements across the whole career. Holy hands down.

Nice to see another Wirral head on the board btw!

Mersey
10-16-2009, 11:24 AM
Agree with the first point and change my mind regularly on the 2nd. Mike brought unbelievable drama to the game, looked unstoppable early doors and remains, to my mind, the most explosive fighter I've ever seen with that combo of speed, movement and power. Add that to being the youngest Champ and that rise to being undisputed I think he deserves a spot in the all time top 10 heavies.

No comparison in terms of longevity and spread of achievements across the whole career. Holy hands down.

Nice to see another Wirral head on the board btw!

Haha where about are you from? We may be the only two.

VibesMan
10-16-2009, 11:26 AM
Eastham, bout u?

Mersey
10-16-2009, 11:32 AM
Mean streets of Moreton :rofl:

Dynamite Kid
10-16-2009, 11:37 AM
Cooper never knocked Holyfield out but Douglas knocked Mike out. Dont give me all the BS about Douglas being unbeatable that night, Douglas was no more talented than someone like Tony Tucker.


They both had poor performances against Douglas/ Cooper and im willing to concede Mike was not in top shape but lets be fair to Holyfield to, he did not get knocked out and although he went down he was not in danger of being stopped.

Holyfield knew how to fight Mike Tyson. Push him back claim the centre of the ring and take him deep and drowned him.

Tyson was always getting pep talks inbetween rounds from Rooney, even in his prime, that tells me he needed to pump him up all the while so he did not lose heart, he was always hitting on the break & after the bell to, that tells me his discipline was not all that in his prime either, and that if he had behind in those fights he might have imploded the way he did against Holyfield. Tyson was always!! a head case who lost heart it just needed exposing and its like the old saying goes the truth will always find you in the ring.


Holyfield takes Mike's heart, unless he does not score a KO and the more they fight the more Holyfield adapts to his style, if Mike & Holy fought 10 times Mike might knock Evander out 1/2 but Holyfield would win more because he would adapt because he was a better fighter, Tyson was a puncher thats it, that is why he cant fight on the backfoot or adapt like Holy.

Benny Leonard
10-16-2009, 12:14 PM
=Dynamite Kid;6377517]Cooper never knocked Holyfield out but Douglas knocked Mike out. Dont give me all the BS about Douglas being unbeatable that night, Douglas was no more talented than someone like Tony Tucker.


They both had poor performances against Douglas/ Cooper and im willing to concede Mike was not in top shape but lets be fair to Holyfield to, he did not get knocked out and although he went down he was not in danger of being stopped.

Holyfield knew how to fight Mike Tyson. Push him back claim the centre of the ring and take him deep and drowned him.

still wonder if Holyfield could have done that back then. Holy was smaller and not as strong as he would be later. Holyfield was massive when he fought Tyson.

Back in the day:
Tyson had a hellova jab that he could use, especially against a 6'2 fighter. Holyfield's waist-line was always small for a HW and Tyson's body-attacks I've always suspected could tire Holyfield down to some degree...even lower his hands to attack the head (even though the body was wear you should go for Holyfield). Tyson actually hurt Holyfield to the body in one of their fights but didn't know how to properly respond anymore. He was also too much of a head-hunter at that point. No game-plan.


Now the contract was first sign with Holyfield from what I heard when he was still with Rooney and Cayton. Tyson fired them and the fight was off. Then back on again but Tyson lost to Douglas.

I'm not so sure Tyson beats Holyfield at that point. I didn't even think Tyson looked impressive as far as boxing goes in the Ruddock fights. He showed he could take a hellova shot and go the distance but he wasn't doing enough that would have me say he could have taken Holyfield.

I had a quote by Foreman somewhere with him basically saying Tyson was finished as a fighter (after watching the Ruddock performance).

Tyson was always getting pep talks inbetween rounds from Rooney, even in his prime, that tells me he needed to pump him up all the while so he did not lose heart, he was always hitting on the break & after the bell to, that tells me his discipline was not all that in his prime either, and that if he had behind in those fights he might have imploded the way he did against Holyfield. Tyson was always!! a head case who lost heart it just needed exposing and its like the old saying goes the truth will always find you in the ring.

Which is also one of the knocks I have with Tyson; To reliant on Rooney.

He didn't always hit on the breaks and foul...not back then. And that has nothing to do with discipline. Most likely, it was something Tyson learned from watching old school fighters and how to win the psychological battle. Tyson was small...he needed to take advantages of certain things in battle...but he really didn't foul that much back then.

Rooney was always there to guide him and get him back on track.
Tyson liked answers...Rooney had them for him. Same reason why Tyson would ask D'Amato how to beat this opponent.


Holyfield was a dirty fighter as well

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/n3oyrq4Q5gM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Holyfield takes Mike's heart, unless he does not score a KO and the more they fight the more Holyfield adapts to his style, if Mike & Holy fought 10 times Mike might knock Evander out 1/2 but Holyfield would win more because he would adapt because he was a better fighter, Tyson was a puncher thats it, that is why he cant fight on the backfoot or adapt like Holy

How was Tyson just a Puncher when he was trained under Rooney?
He had a solid jab, body attacks, combinations, head-movement, and a strategy to win when he was unifying the title.
He wasn't trained to be a mover which was a mistake, but it doesn't mean he couldn't box. He actually had to stand their and break down his opponents because he was smaller in heigh, weight, and reach. When you have a small reach, you tend to have to get inside as quick as possible.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

There was considerable controversy surrounding the events in the Holyfield-Czyz fight. Despite Holyfield***8217;s dominance in the ring, the fight was actually stopped because Czyz couldn***8217;t see. Greg Smith reported that Bobby***8217;s eyes appeared to be red and inflamed and that referee Ron Lipton examined Holyfield***8217;s gloves. Bobby told Smith that the day after the fight skin peeled off his face from the forehead to the chin. Smith quotes Czyz as saying that Holyfield head butted, elbowed, forearmed him, thumbed him, and that he was a ***8220;dirty fighter.***8221;

Against Sanders, Czyz was floored in the first round and again in the second before the fight was stopped. It was fitting that just as he called for many times from others from behind the microphone, the warrior went out on his shield.

Even today, Czyz has little respect for Holyfield, except to say that he was the ***8220;ultimate overachiever.***8221;

***8220;He***8217;s just full of (it),***8221; Bobby continued. ***8220;That bothers me. I don***8217;t know what religion it is that says you can have 12 kids with nine different women and not be married to them and it***8217;s okay. He***8217;s a fraud. He was a 188 pound cruiserweight, and then he went to 218 pounds. You cannot gain 30 pounds, lose body fat, and maintain that physique without artificial enhancement. It can***8217;t be done. Not possible. He gets a pass in the media for one simple reason - he believes in God.***8221;http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=268868&highlight=Bobby+Czyz

Dynamite Kid
10-16-2009, 01:01 PM
Benny Leonard

Sounds like another load of excuses and BS to me.

Benny Leonard
10-16-2009, 01:24 PM
Benny Leonard

Sounds like another load of excuses and BS to me.

What's B.S. and excuses?

VibesMan
10-16-2009, 01:40 PM
Cooper never knocked Holyfield out but Douglas knocked Mike out. Dont give me all the BS about Douglas being unbeatable that night, Douglas was no more talented than someone like Tony Tucker.


They both had poor performances against Douglas/ Cooper and im willing to concede Mike was not in top shape but lets be fair to Holyfield to, he did not get knocked out and although he went down he was not in danger of being stopped.

Holyfield knew how to fight Mike Tyson. Push him back claim the centre of the ring and take him deep and drowned him.

Tyson was always getting pep talks inbetween rounds from Rooney, even in his prime, that tells me he needed to pump him up all the while so he did not lose heart, he was always hitting on the break & after the bell to, that tells me his discipline was not all that in his prime either, and that if he had behind in those fights he might have imploded the way he did against Holyfield. Tyson was always!! a head case who lost heart it just needed exposing and its like the old saying goes the truth will always find you in the ring.


Holyfield takes Mike's heart, unless he does not score a KO and the more they fight the more Holyfield adapts to his style, if Mike & Holy fought 10 times Mike might knock Evander out 1/2 but Holyfield would win more because he would adapt because he was a better fighter, Tyson was a puncher thats it, that is why he cant fight on the backfoot or adapt like Holy.

Thanks for your thoughts - No excuses being made re the actual fight.

Just to clarify - My question was around how Mike fares specifically against Holyfield of 91 who struggled with Foreman/Holmes and to a degree Cooper?

If your quote re Holy beating Mike 8 or 9 times out of 10 relates to any stage of their career at any given time then fair enough.

I still believe if Mike ever could beat him it's in that window of time before he took on Bowe.

RightCross94
10-16-2009, 05:19 PM
God's sake. Both Mike and evander were past their best when they fought (esp. Evander) but Mike always had the fragile mentality of a bully, Evander would do to Mike exactly what he did when they fought for real. He was stronger and tougher than Mike. Hold Tyson, catch him coming in, counter him as he throws those punches he puts all his weight into. Mike breaks mentally just like he did in the real fight.


This BS of "prime tyson" being unbeatable needs to ****ing stop, it's just tired and boring. The man got Knocked the **** out by Douglas in his prime, and made into a ***** by a 34 year old post Bowe triliogy Evander. And then embarassed more times by journeyman such as Kevin McBride. Even though he was shot then, still.

RightCross94
10-16-2009, 05:20 PM
Thanks for your thoughts - No excuses being made re the actual fight.

Just to clarify - My question was around how Mike fares specifically against Holyfield of 91 who struggled with Foreman/Holmes and to a degree Cooper?

If your quote re Holy beating Mike 8 or 9 times out of 10 relates to any stage of their career at any given time then fair enough.

I still believe if Mike ever could beat him it's in that window of time before he took on Bowe.

and my question is how can you have Evander losing to Mike, who was stopped by Douglas.

Benny Leonard
10-16-2009, 05:31 PM
God's sake. Both Mike and evander were past their best when they fought (esp. Evander) but Mike always had the fragile mentality of a bully, Evander would do to Mike exactly what he did when they fought for real. He was stronger and tougher than Mike. Hold Tyson, catch him coming in, counter him as he throws those punches he puts all his weight into. Mike breaks mentally just like he did in the real fight.


This BS of "prime tyson" being unbeatable needs to ****ing stop, it's just tired and boring. The man got Knocked the **** out by Douglas in his prime, and made into a ***** by a 34 year old post Bowe triliogy Evander. And then embarassed more times by journeyman such as Kevin McBride. Even though he was shot then, still.


Agree

Disagree. Prime or maybe I'll just stick with "Peak" is marked by your best. What got Tyson to unify the titles and what was missing when he lost them?

Floyd Patterson to Mike Tyson upon being asked after the Douglas loss what advice he would give Tyson (in order to get it back): "Remember what got you there"

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ........

THE SCHOLAR CONSIDERS:
An Interview With Boxing Historian Herbert G. Goldman
By Katherine Dunn


Another man-- a shame whatís happened to him, and Iíd say the only man who could have beaten him eventually did beat him, and that was himselfóMike Tyson. Now Mike Tysonís styleótalking about a boxer learning from boxers of the pastóand itís amazing that more has not been made of this. Mike Tysonís style is Jack Dempsey, completely. The way he comes in quickly with a bob and weave, ducks down low and comes up with a smashing left hook to the larger manís head and face, thatís Jack Dempsey. When Tyson turned pro he even came into the ring with the sides of his head shaven in emulation of Jack Dempsey. There is no doubt about this. No socks, low shoes, black trunks. This was a young man who studied old fight films like crazy. And he found that the style of Jack Dempsey was more conducive to his own abilities than any other style. And thatís what he developed.

KD -- I always felt that Tyson was a small heavyweight and he was often misunderstood and under-rated in terms of the level of genuine skill that he brought into the ring.

HG -- Thatís right. A lot of people did not understand what they were watching when they saw Mike Tyson. He was not some slugger as such.

KD -- He was not a super-power in terms of his physical strength

HG -- Oh no. One thing about Mike Tyson that I donít think a lot of people understand because of, letís say his psychological-social problems, a lot of people think heís some kind of stupid brute. Heís not. He happens to be, as far as I can see-- and I donít know the man but I have had a couple of conversations with him-- an intelligent young man. Heís probably one of the most intelligent fighters, certainly in terms of boxing, that weíve seen. His emulation of the Jack Dempseyís style. His knowledge of boxing history is considerable, by the way, and when you listen to him, this is not a stupid man. Heís a very misunderstood boxer, and people also do not understand that his skills eroded after a certain period. People will say Ah he was never anything,. They start to question him all the way back. No. He peaked when he knocked out Michael Spinks in the first round. But beginning about a year after that he really started to go down hill.

KD -- That was a period when he had separated from Rooney, his remaining DíAmato trainer, and he no longer had a real trainer who understood his style.

HG -- Right. Tyson was a fighter who needed a certain edge. He needed to be on edge. And when he lost that he lost a tremendous amount. He still has too much power and over-all ability for ninety or ninety-five percent of all the fighters out there. Thereís no question about that. But at his peak I canít imagineóand I say this with all respect and deference for Evander Holyfieldóbut at his peak I canít imagine Tyson being defeated by Holyfield. At his peak he would have been a terrific fight even for the peak Muhammad Ali.

VibesMan
10-16-2009, 06:03 PM
and my question is how can you have Evander losing to Mike, who was stopped by Douglas.

Ok. One last time.

Post Bowe Holyfield beats Tyson all day long.

I just happen to believe PRE BOWE Holyfield looked far less resistant than The Real Deal we came to see later in his career.

All this "Douglas beat Mike and Vander beat Douglas therefore how can Mike beat Vander" is toss. You can name any number of fight triangles where that means nothing. Douglas fell over against Holfyfield.

This isn't just a thread desperately trying to convince myself Mike could have beat Vander. I'm more interested in what may have happened to both fighters careers if Mike had fought him in 91 and won?

I see the Holyfield defeat as an integral part of Tyson falling apart as a person and a fighter and just wondered if things could have turned out differently for either of them.