Tyson vs Holyfield - who of them is better fighter?

[Southpaw16BF]

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

[1SILVA]

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

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

[JAB5239]

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

[FeFist]

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

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

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

[StarshipTrooper]

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

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

Probably Bias?

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

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

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

Think about that. Using your logic then:

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

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

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

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

And last but certainly not least:

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

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

Poet

[MANGLER]

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

[nissassagame]

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

[PLATE]

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

Okay, he was strong boxer with great handspeed.

And that's all.

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

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

[Adler]

At this moment:

Holyfield 25
Tyson 10
no choyce 1