Mike Tyson vs Evander Holyfield I

[Anthony342]

I've often thought of this one myself. If Holyfield had fought Tyson back when he was still with Kevin Rooney, I'd still lean towards Holyfield, but I think the fight is closer, with either a late TKO win for Holyfield, probably the 10th or 11th or a close decision, maybe split, by about 2 to 4 points.

[SBleeder]

Then it was onto making 'Once And For All' when Tyson had collected all the belts. He's recognized as the Champion for both 1986-1987 although nobody genuinely takes that seriously.

He was the heavyweight champion of the world until Tyson beat him. Belts mean nothing; lineal championships are what matter.

[CarlosG815]

I think Tyson showed he had an iron chin in this fight, and alot of heart. Tyson was taking alot of heavy shots the entire fight. He gets up from a knockdown in the 6th. He takes a big combo in the 10th and stumbles but doesent go down. Then in the 11th he takes another barrage of power shots and still stays on his feet and the ref stopped it. I think Tyson could have finished the fight, mabe even got a KO win with a big uppercut late. He was still thowing powershots at the beginning of the 11th. But the three years in prison really hurt him the most, his reflexes were gone. And for a smaller heavyweight like Tyson speed,reflexes, and timing shots are very very important. I just wish the fight could of happened in 1991, I think Tyson wins by TKO in the mid rounds or could have even won a close decision. It would have been a better fight than the 1996 match im sure.

80's Tyson beats Holyfield easy, 91 Tyson beats him, but in 96 when he was still a good fighter but a shell of his former self, I give him a good chance. I think he could have won the second fight.

Evander was so juiced up on steroids and was very big. That wasn't going to be an easy fight any way you slice it. Steroids are an incredible drug and we have seen the advantages it can give. The fact that Tyson went as far in the first fight as he did against a juiced Holyfield is a testament to his toughness.

I have often wondered if Mike had juiced up for the rematch.

[The Surgeon]

80's Tyson beats Holyfield easy, 91 Tyson beats him, but in 96 when he was still a good fighter but a shell of his former self, I give him a good chance. I think he could have won the second fight.

Evander was so juiced up on steroids and was very big. That wasn't going to be an easy fight any way you slice it. Steroids are an incredible drug and we have seen the advantages it can give. The fact that Tyson went as far in the first fight as he did against a juiced Holyfield is a testament to his toughness.

I have often wondered if Mike had juiced up for the rematch.

I despise calling Evander a Roids cheat, he was such a great fighter and so full of heart, a warrior. The fact is though that he more than likely was juicing, Evan Fields and all.....

[CarlosG815]

I despise calling Evander a Roids cheat, he was such a great fighter and so full of heart, a warrior. The fact is though that he more than likely was juicing, Evan Fields and all.....

Yeah, without question in my eyes he was a steroid abuser. Look at his physique, head size, etc.. He had all the tell tale signs of a steroid abuser.

[Barn]

Yeah, without question in my eyes he was a steroid abuser. Look at his physique, head size, etc.. He had all the tell tale signs of a steroid abuser.

His heart condition was also a characteristic of steroid abuse.

[Hands of Iron]

He was the heavyweight champion of the world until Tyson beat him. Belts mean nothing; lineal championships are what matter.

But not the best heavyweight. I'm actually a fan of lineal championships but there are times when I have issues with it. Do you consider George Foreman the top heavyweight through 1997 despite the fact he fought nobody of significance after the Moorer win? He actually got a gift against Alex Schulz and in turn got robbed against Shannon Briggs, which makes it even more silly. Spinks wouldnt so much as fight Tony Tucker, opting for more money against Gerry Cooney in 1987 and fought nobody else after Holmes II and before Tyson, who wiped out world contenders Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs (as well as Holmes and Tubbs) over the same time span.

Was Gus Lesnevich the top LHW of the 1940s when several of the very greatest of all-time were active and fighting eachother numerous times?

Lineal is fine, but cant be sat upon with inactivity or lack of quality opposition to maintain the claim IMO.