Who was better?Tyson or Holyfield?

[average_expert]

out of ten

tyson - holyfield

technique - 10 - 8
power - 10 - 7
speed - 10 - 8
adaptability - 8 - 10
heart - 8 - 10
dirty tactics - 8 - 10
longevity - 7 - 10
entertaining - 10 - 9

overall - 71 - 72

i like them both but holyfeild just tips tyson, mike had great potential, but it was squanded like his money
cant judge people on what they might have done imo

[dodge]

Tyson is my favorite fighter all time. I think holy had the better career.

[miron_lang]

Thanks man Althought Tyson may have been more exciting to some cause of his knockout power..Holyfield was usually the smaller man in the ring while fighting at heavy wt. Therefore there were quite a few fight's where he had to come from behind and that in itself is exciting...just as exciting as any knockout (to my humble self, anyway )..As for outside the ring, as for who set the better example and was the better person all around, Holy wins that one hands down (other than that little problem of not keeping his pecker in his pants ) but atleast those women were willing (just know that's gonna piss a few of you off...but cant help that!!!)

I dont consider Holyfield small jjust because he started @ Cruiser. He is 6'2 and 210 to 215 lbs of Muscle. Toney is not even 6'1 and is quite fat but still a ranked heavyweight, ALSO his chin is as big as anybody

Againts each other Holyfield is better, Tyson is the more exciting fighter because fans are always abticipating early KO's.

[tracylee]

I dont consider Holyfield small jjust because he started @ Cruiser. He is 6'2 and 210 to 215 lbs of Muscle. Toney is not even 6'1 and is quite fat but still a ranked heavyweight, ALSO his chin is as big as anybody

Againts each other Holyfield is better, Tyson is the more exciting fighter because fans are always abticipating early KO's.

He may be 6'2, but 210 is NOTHING compared to the typical size and wt. of boxers like Forman, Golota and the others that fought at that time! The majority of them dwarfed him to the point that alot of people betted against him cause of that factor. He was the "underdog" in a hugh number of his fights at heavy wt..even against Tyson, who was shorter than him! Yes, he was all muscle, but he was always so much smaller than the majority of them. Just remember back at that time..the heavy wt. boys were made big and strapping then! Very few of them were light like Chris Byrd and James Toney (a blown up middle wt.)

[adeelr]

holifield was good fighter and good sportsman but i dont believe he can match the skills of tyson. tyson himself is responsible for his downfall. Much respect to holyfield

[ophqui]

It's tyson.
In terms of skills and general boxing abilaty its tyson by far (speaking of both fighters in their primes). Holyfield was a better sportsman and person generally, but he didnt have the power to match tyson imo

[tracylee]

It's tyson.
In terms of skills and general boxing abilaty its tyson by far (speaking of both fighters in their primes). Holyfield was a better sportsman and person generally, but he didnt have the power to match tyson imo

Having power is not the same as having skill. I always thought that Tyson was more of a power puncher than a technician therefore Holy had more skill than power..while Tyson had more power than skill.

[ophqui]

I believe tyson had both in greater quantity than holyfield, tyson was a smart, skillful fighter, people just tend not to acknowledge it because he's such a nutcase

[partee]

How can there be any question? Holy decimated Tyson twice.

[AIR_KENG]

i agree, it's tyson for me. he is better in skills and in power... he was just not focused enough when they met that spelled his doom... tyson in his prime is would have demolished a holyfield in his prime...