Why did holyfield beat tyson ? .

Holyfield beat Tyson because although Holyfield did not have as much speed and power as Tyson, he had a lot more heart and determination. If Holyfield is able to rough Tyson up and bring the fight into the late rounds, Tyson cannot beat him. Even against the eighties Tyson I believe a prime Holyfield would win. The reason being that Tyson would not be able to knock Holyfield out in the early rounds, there is no way. I just don't see a Tyson of any era winning any rounds beyond the third against Holyfield. 80s tyson didnt rush knockouts he paced himself and had about the same movement andhit power in the later rounds. i think your mistaking the 90s tyson for the 80s tyson. cause 90s tyson tried to rush it not 80s.check your info before u post. ;)

Its very simple really. Holyfield is better. I agree, this is the answer to the thread!

Holyfield beat Tyson because although Holyfield did not have as much speed and power as Tyson, he had a lot more heart and determination. If Holyfield is able to rough Tyson up and bring the fight into the late rounds, Tyson cannot beat him. Even against the eighties Tyson I believe a prime Holyfield would win. The reason being that Tyson would not be able to knock Holyfield out in the early rounds, there is no way. I just don't see a Tyson of any era winning any rounds beyond the third against Holyfield.

Ok, a couple things: KidAchillies has a point in that body types do not automatically determine what type of fighting will be effective, or what type of skills a fighter will have. However, he is flat-out wrong when he says Tyson couldnt fight inside. Of course he could, and he did. True, he would let himself get tied up at times, but often he would wail away with combos, reload and hit again. This is VERY effective infighting...just because the fighters heads arent touching the whole time does not, DOES NOT, mean it is not effective infighting... Tyson took away Tyrell Biggs legs by banging the body...and Biggs could move around like Ali (before somebody cries blasphemy, Biggs could move like Ali...not saying he was as good, just that he was just as fast and fluid on his feet). Tyson pounded Ferguson's body for several rounds. He spent half his fight against Razor Ruddock hitting the body, taking out Ruddocks legs. Watch his fights before saying he can't work the body or infight. And by watch his fights, I speak about the 80s fights...nothing from after prison because that Tyson was merely a shell of the man: he was much farther gone than Holyfield was at that point.

Well moron, I did watch every fight Tyson fought, and I watched most of them live. He fought a bunch of fucking bums. He fought guys like Mitch Blood Green, and Carl the Truth Williams, Razor Ruddock, etc. They all sucked. He managed to decision some of these guys. The thing is if you want be called a great heavyweight you have to do more than just have a good offense. You need desire, heart and determination. If Mike couldn't KO a guy in 4 rounds, he didn't know what else to do. You have to win defining fights against great fighters. Mike Tyson did none of that. He folded against the first fighter that could really box. Mike was and still is, alot of bullshit hype. Look man, he had his ass kicked by James Buster Douglas, by Holyfield twice ( he bit his ear off because he was getting his ass kicked again). He was beaten senseless by Lennox Lewis. Holyfield was washed up when he fought Lewis but at least it was a competitive fight. Mike Tyson was just a money making machine for Don King. Remember the Peter McNeeley bullshit. He beat fucking bums to get the title. He doesn't even belong in the top 20 all time. I can name all sorts of fighters that would have kicked his ass. You can't be great if you are a quitter. You guys are always re-writing history when you say that Tyson didn't lose to Holyfield. Holyfield was a better fighter, a better role model and a better person. Mike was too busy raping and playing up his Dennis Rodman bullshit act to be a fighter. sounds like someone was suckin holyfields dick last night. put it like this arnt guys going to look like bums if u knock them the fuck out under 3? if ali did most of his opponents like that he would of been called sorry also.(in your eyes) and for holyfield being great hhhhhmmmmmmm what is hoyfield doin right now gettin his ass kicked by really low competition in under cards. and he has brain damage what kind of tru champion still continues boxin when they know there at risk of gettin killed in the ring(i guess he got hit to much)and lets see tyson at least he's smart enough to quit and not go on like holyfield, and tyson has no brain damage cause he didnt get his ass kicked like holyfield. and when tyson fights its always on ppv. even if ppl know if might be a 1 round k.o. and when tyson has a fight comin up its everywhere in the boxing community and espn,fox cnn,etc,etc. and when holyfield has a fight comin up no one gives a fuck. now u tell me whos the real great 1? and if all the hype on tyson can jus be caused by what u call bums,then how come everybody isnt like tyson then. why dont u ask your self that dumb fuck.

I've already explained this too many times on this forum but for your sake I'll do it again. Watch James Toney and Bernard Hopkins to see what a skilled inside fighter looks like. Tyson used his jab to get by his opponents own, he'd get inside, maybe land a combinaton, and then get out. That is not inside fighting. Inside fighting is about leaning into your opponent and beating the hell out of their chest and body. Watch Joe Louis in any of his fights, and Hopkins especially against Trinidad. Inside fighting is knowing how to clinch, break a clinch, and fight out of a clinch without needing the refs help. An inside fighter stays at that range for extended periods of time to get some work in. Tyson didn't do that. It was in and out. If you clinched him, he let you, because messing around in there just wasn't his game. Tyson was not an inside fighter. You can rant on as much as you want about his short arms and whatnot, but that does not somehow give him skills that he didn't have. o my god you really havnt seen tysons fights. all i gotta say is look at tyson vs.jesse furgeson for one instance. when for most of the fight he was inside and he did it for 6 round. even his first fight. like i said before dont criticize the man if u havnt see all of his fights. u jus go with the crowd. u probably saw if 90s and on. if u saw all of his fights we wouldnt be having this little argument. he would steady look for openings when he was in the inside. i got the tyson collection so i should know what im talkin about unless my eyes decieve me.

Everybody knows that Tyson WAS NOT the same fighter he was when he split from Kevin Rooney & that was in the 80's. He got away from all of the little things that made him a devastating force in the heavyweight division like combo punching, head movement, & jabbing. At the age of 17 he was KO'ing grown men that had ALOT more experience than him. By 20 he was the youngest heavyweight champion of the world & by his early 20's.

I think holyfield beat tyson because tyson only threw one punch at a time and holyield grabbed tyson pushed him back and hit tyson with combinations while he had on the backfoot . Am i right ? . ...Holy was the better boxer, the better man, and had a bigger heart. He never punched like Tyson but he was never a quitter and was always ready to see a tough fight to the end.

i think u were on that crack pipe when u said holyfield was great and tyson wasnt. maybe in your eyes but u need to start readin the top 10 hw of all time post alot of ppl do and well known boxing analysis and usually he's ahead of holyfield. u need to sit yo ass down and actually watch all tysons fights before u make a judgement like that one u jus made Well moron, I did watch every fight Tyson fought, and I watched most of them live. He fought a bunch of fucking bums. He fought guys like Mitch Blood Green, and Carl the Truth Williams, Razor Ruddock, etc. They all sucked. He managed to decision some of these guys. The thing is if you want be called a great heavyweight you have to do more than just have a good offense. You need desire, heart and determination. If Mike couldn't KO a guy in 4 rounds, he didn't know what else to do. You have to win defining fights against great fighters. Mike Tyson did none of that. He folded against the first fighter that could really box. Mike was and still is, alot of bullshit hype. Look man, he had his ass kicked by James Buster Douglas, by Holyfield twice ( he bit his ear off because he was getting his ass kicked again). He was beaten senseless by Lennox Lewis. Holyfield was washed up when he fought Lewis but at least it was a competitive fight. Mike Tyson was just a money making machine for Don King. Remember the Peter McNeeley bullshit. He beat fucking bums to get the title. He doesn't even belong in the top 20 all time. I can name all sorts of fighters that would have kicked his ass. You can't be great if you are a quitter. You guys are always re-writing history when you say that Tyson didn't lose to Holyfield. Holyfield was a better fighter, a better role model and a better person. Mike was too busy raping and playing up his Dennis Rodman bullshit act to be a fighter.

Just watch his fights. The proof is in the pudding. I am through arguing on this thread with people who can't understand simple concepts. Being a short man does not make you a great inside fighter. Marciano wasn't an awesome inside fight either. Joe Louis was much, much better. The same with Dempsey who was nearly 6'2" and 6'5" Riddick Bowe. They were all tall rangy guys who dominated on the inside. Bodytypes do not impart skills in an individual.

why must these threads exist? lets not dwell in the past, we have an outcome. it's in the books. i'm a bigger tyson fan than i am a holyfield fan myself- but i shall not moan about their fights. 'tyson could have beat him if it was the 86-88 tyson!' it wasn't the 86-88 tyson. it was the 97 tyson. the 97 tyson lost because he was overconfident and underestimated holyfield. and then lost again because despite the fact he was looking better than holyfield was up to the DQ (to me anyways), he decided to have a second lunch that day. his bust. that fight wasn't lost to him yet- and he still went and did something stupid and dramatic for no concrete reason.

Tyson was a very accomplished inside fighter. Only Burns and Marciano had a shorter reach. His style was predicated on boxing and defense, not grappling, so no, he never grappled under D'Amato's system. Why should he? He was busy pitching shutouts and KOS. It's not like he HAD to grapple to protect himself, he was already well covered up. The ref breaks em and Tyson immediately went back to work. Let's take a look at two good inside fighters, Corrales and Castillo. Both took a ton of punishment in their last fight and one was KOed and the other came within a whisker of being KOed. Tyson rarely took punishment under D'Amato's system and was never in any trouble in the ring. All the criticism of Tyson dates to when he stopped training properly under D'Amato's system. He still had his natural talent and some residual skills, but physically and mentally he lost his focus and never could stem the long decline. Before then he was as perfect a fighter in the ring as could ever be imagined.

There are several stories that continue to go around-- many of them conflicting-- about what happened when Mike met Vander during their amateur days for sparring sessions. Maybe, just maybe, the one who knows the real story could provide the answer to this thread's initial question...?

Tyson used his jab to get by his opponents own, he'd get inside, maybe land a combinaton, and then get out. That is not inside fighting. Inside fighting is about leaning into your opponent and beating the hell out of their chest and body. haha. Imagine inside boxing like this. This is the danger meter: After being inside for more then 6 seconds, the danger meter is full and you should get out before your opponent gets you with the hardest punch in your life. Jab, whop, inside with a combination or three, get out. (y) That's smooth.

lol? Tyson is 5,10. If he would fight outside, how the fuck would he become the world champion? Tyson is a living example that no matter how small you are, you can still grab the title.

obviously u havnt seen tyson fight. especially in the 80s. why do u think he threw his jab for, to show people that he had fast hands. he threw his jab to get INSIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! duhhhhhhhhh. i cant believe u said that. what did u think he did with those short arms jab outside like ali. on all of his knockouts and yes i said all he get inside he never tries to stay outside. learn some shit about tyson before postin bullshit like that. dont judge jus 90s tyson. that would me like me judgin ali when he got his ass whiped by larry holmes and trevor berbick. cause ali jus wasnt the same. do me a favor and download some tyson fights in the 80s before judgin a legend I've already explained this too many times on this forum but for your sake I'll do it again. Watch James Toney and Bernard Hopkins to see what a skilled inside fighter looks like. Tyson used his jab to get by his opponents own, he'd get inside, maybe land a combinaton, and then get out. That is not inside fighting. Inside fighting is about leaning into your opponent and beating the hell out of their chest and body. Watch Joe Louis in any of his fights, and Hopkins especially against Trinidad. Inside fighting is knowing how to clinch, break a clinch, and fight out of a clinch without needing the refs help. An inside fighter stays at that range for extended periods of time to get some work in. Tyson didn't do that. It was in and out. If you clinched him, he let you, because messing around in there just wasn't his game. Tyson was not an inside fighter. You can rant on as much as you want about his short arms and whatnot, but that does not somehow give him skills that he didn't have.

Holyfield, though 6'2", was a much better infighter than the 5'10" Tyson. That's all there is to it. Tyson's mindset really came into play in the second fight, but in both matches, Holy was the man on the inside. If Tyson learned to fight on the inside, he would have had so much more success in his career. obviously u havnt seen tyson fight. especially in the 80s. why do u think he threw his jab for, to show people that he had fast hands. he threw his jab to get INSIDE!!!!!!!!!!!! duhhhhhhhhh. i cant believe u said that. what did u think he did with those short arms jab outside like ali. on all of his knockouts and yes i said all he get inside he never tries to stay outside. learn some shit about tyson before postin bullshit like that. dont judge jus 90s tyson. that would me like me judgin ali when he got his ass whiped by larry holmes and trevor berbick. cause ali jus wasnt the same. do me a favor and download some tyson fights in the 80s before judgin a legend

Mike Tyson was washed up before he fought Buster Douglas. However, Holyfield was 36 years old when he fought Tyson and his best days were already past also. Basically, we had a Mike Tyson who was alot worse than anyone could imagine. Holyfield, even in the twilight of his heyday, just flat kicked Mike's ass pillar to post. As far as Mike beating Holyfield at any age probably would not have happened. I think a 28 year old Holyfield KO's a 23 year old Tyson. Holyfield was just too tough mentally. He was always in shape. Watch him fight Kawi at light heavy. It was like watching light weights bang it out for 15 rounds. Evander Holyfield was one of the great heavyweights of all time. Mike wasn't. i think u were on that crack pipe when u said holyfield was great and tyson wasnt. maybe in your eyes but u need to start readin the top 10 hw of all time post alot of ppl do and well known boxing analysis and usually he's ahead of holyfield. u need to sit yo ass down and actually watch all tysons fights before u make a judgement like that one u jus made

This posts tell mes everything I need to know about your knowledge of Tyson, you clearly have never seen the man fight. Tyson was an incredible inside fighter in his day. Holyfield beating Tyson had nothing to do with Tyson's inability to fight on the inside, that is just nonsense. It was Holyfield coming in to fight the fight of his life and not being afraid, and Tyson not having a gameplan. Mike was just loading up looking for one shot, and Holyfield was countering him beautifully. Holyfield beat Tyson because Tyson at that point was a headhunter and Holyfield made him pay. its about time someone got it right. how can people say tyson was a poor infighter, watch his fights in his prime. he gets in close to his opponents to the point where their heads touch and he just destroys them to the body and finishes with uppercuts. tysons infighting in his young days was awesome and very few people had a clue how to handle it. as far as this holyfield shit, it should go down in history as the most overrated fight ever. neither guy was any good at his point, tyson has made a 2nd career out of making others look good and getting them paid.

Mike Tyson was washed up before he fought Buster Douglas. However, Holyfield was 36 years old when he fought Tyson and his best days were already past also. Basically, we had a Mike Tyson who was alot worse than anyone could imagine. Holyfield, even in the twilight of his heyday, just flat kicked Mike's ass pillar to post. As far as Mike beating Holyfield at any age probably would not have happened. I think a 28 year old Holyfield KO's a 23 year old Tyson. Holyfield was just too tough mentally. He was always in shape. Watch him fight Kawi at light heavy. It was like watching light weights bang it out for 15 rounds. Evander Holyfield was one of the great heavyweights of all time. Mike wasn't.