Who was better?Tyson or Holyfield?

[tracylee]

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 )

[Brother Mouzone]

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]

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.

[Kid Achilles]

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 Rid**** 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]

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 Rid**** 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]

"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]

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]

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 **** 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]

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]

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 **** 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.