Top 10 HW ever in terms of H2H

[QueensburyRules]

Holyfield was far closer to his best performances against Bowe & Lennox than Tyson was to his performances against Holmes & Spinks.

Again, Tyson was in prison for 3 years, so nobody knew how shot or not shot he was. You're looking at the marketing of Tyson who was still marketed at 1987 Tyson.

King put him in there with McNeilly, Buster Mathis, and Bruno, but he wasn't anywhere near his peak form .

Holyfield's best performance at heavyweight was only a few years earlier while Tyson was in prison.

You actually have to watch the fights, not just look at who's chronologically younger and who "shouldn't be shot".

Wilfred Benitez was shot at like 25-26.

Bernard Hopkins was still going at 49.

Tyson's peak form was at 22/23

Holyfield's at 30.

In '96, Tyson was 8 years past his best performance.

Holyfield was only 3 years past his.

- - 4 year interval between Mike's fights, longer than Ali or Louis.

That's why he fought McNeely first out of the Big House. His steady downhill progress started as soon as he lost Jimmy Jacobs and signed with DKing while marrying blood sucking Givens whereupon he was put on dangerous, experimental psychotropic sedatives.

[DeeMoney]

I'm surprised Prime Foreman isn't getting as much love. I get Jimmy Young being the death knell kinda puts a damper on things, but I feel like up until the Ali fight that guy was a monster; and it took one of the slickest fighter's ever putting on a master craft of strategy to slow him down. Maybe I'm buying into the hype, but I feel he was in his own head after that fight, but before that fight.....watch out.

Though short lived, I'd give prime (early to mid 70s) Foreman some love on these lists.

[QueensburyRules]

I'm surprised Prime Foreman isn't getting as much love. I get Jimmy Young being the death knell kinda puts a damper on things, but I feel like up until the Ali fight that guy was a monster; and it took one of the slickest fighter's ever putting on a master craft of strategy to slow him down. Maybe I'm buying into the hype, but I feel he was in his own head after that fight, but before that fight.....watch out.

Though short lived, I'd give prime (early to mid 70s) Foreman some love on these lists.

- - Announced as a split decision, at some point it was reversed to UD.

All Jimmy did was run/stink/cover save walking raging George into a right hand for the KD in the 12th, but understand run/cover/stink was the new Ali style and all the rage and still is among American fighters which is why moderns have sunk to the lowest level in the history of the US.

[max baer]

- - Tyson was in the middle of his 4 round, 3 ring circus act on strong, experimental psychotropic sedatives fighting beyond when he wanted to retire but for King stealing his $50 mil retirement annuity.

A HUGE name for promotional value, not The Man, hence the McNeely and other subsequent farces. Older Vander wasn't in position to fight preprison Mike who had more of his mental faculties then even if in decline. Big George had that fight lined up before the Tiananmen Massacre. Instead that fight went to Buster.

Just gonna have to live with Vander getting the 3rd rate Mike, not the first or second rate Mike, and needed headbutts to win which is where he first earned his moniker as HolyButt.

That's fine since it gives you something to crow about absent any other thing in your sheltered life.

so you are saying that every single fighter in history has to be at his absolute optical peak and the opponent is only judged on his absolute peak? Like tyson vs holmes, ali versus big cat or lewis against say gallota.
So there is no arguement for using skills and tactics and mind games and experience over the course of their careers.
so all this comes down to each time is who at their extreme utter peak would beat the other greats a their absolute peaks and you only can have ONE absolute winner.
I mean, should we not base the best fighters on their careers and how they dealt with adversity and age and slower reflexes etc.
If we are all arguing about who is the only single best ever when they fought at their absolute peak like GOD then we might as well just stop arguing and admit who was the ultimate best of the best...........max baer!!

[QueensburyRules]

so you are saying that every single fighter in history has to be at his absolute optical peak and the opponent is only judged on his absolute peak?

- - Are you saying because I and 100,000 other healthy males in the day coulda whooped the Ali who fought Holmes should be included on your list?

[The D3vil]

Who said anything about age?

Holyfield, at the time, was considered further passed his best and that is based off their performances, not their age.

Any way you look at it, Holyfield is the vastly superior fighter.

He showed it in the ring H2H, and it showed it their comparative careers.

How was Holyfield at the time considered further past his best?

Name ONE of Tyson's best performances that happened in the '90s?

Tyson's best performances were ALL in the '80s.

Holyfield's performances against Bowe are to this day considered some of the greatest in history.

- - 4 year interval between Mike's fights, longer than Ali or Louis.

That's why he fought McNeely first out of the Big House. His steady downhill progress started as soon as he lost Jimmy Jacobs and signed with DKing while marrying blood sucking Givens whereupon he was put on dangerous, experimental psychotropic sedatives.

This.

[IronDanHamza]

How was Holyfield at the time considered further past his best?

Name ONE of Tyson's best performances that happened in the '90s?

Tyson's best performances were ALL in the '80s.

Holyfield's performances against Bowe are to this day considered some of the greatest in history.



This.

Were you alive then? If so, you tell me. Because that was literally the overwhelming consensus; That Holyfield was finished and would last 1 maybe 2 rounds with Tyson.

Holyfield had retired, with heart problems, was 4-3 in his last 7 fights going into the fight with Tyson. Brutally stopped a year prior and even in his wins didn't look great, against Mercer for example.

Also, two of Tyson's best wins were against Razor Ruddock which were in the 90's not 80's. So you're objectively wrong in saying "All" his best wins were in the 80's.

Again, it's nothing more than revisionist history on your part to laughably suggest that going into that fight people considered Tyson the one on the slide when it was in fact the exact opposite.

[Willie Pep 229]

I think the overwhelming opinion was that the fight should have happened back in '90 soon after Tyson dispatched Douglas for a quick Tokyo payday; that by late 1996 they were both past their prime, with Tyson having whethered a little better (rust being more forgiving than taking punches) and was the betting favorite.

By 1996 Holyfield was thought to be the more ring worn.

I am not sure but I believe most saw the Holyfield victory as a mild upset; at least surprised by the dominating KO.

I was surprised how Holyfield looked to be the more powerful of the two men. Of course later on I would understand how that came to be, but at the time I was taken back by Holyfield's size and power.

[IronDanHamza]

I think the overwhelming opinion was that the fight should have happened back in '90 soon after Tyson dispatched Douglas for a quick Tokyo payday; that by late 1996 they were both past their prime, with Tyson having whethered a little better (rust being more forgiving than taking punches) and was the betting favorite.

By 1996 Holyfield was thought to be the more ring worn.

I am not sure but I believe most saw the Holyfield victory as a mild upset; at least surprised by the dominating KO.

I was surprised how Holyfield looked to be the more powerful of the two men. Of course later on I would understand how that came to be, but at the time I was taken back by Holyfield's size and power.

It was a huge upset, not mild.

[The D3vil]

Were you alive then? If so, you tell me. Because that was literally the overwhelming consensus; That Holyfield was finished and would last 1 maybe 2 rounds with Tyson.

Holyfield had retired, with heart problems, was 4-3 in his last 7 fights going into the fight with Tyson. Brutally stopped a year prior and even in his wins didn't look great, against Mercer for example.

Also, two of Tyson's best wins were against Razor Ruddock which were in the 90's not 80's. So you're objectively wrong in saying "All" his best wins were in the 80's.

Again, it's nothing more than revisionist history on your part to laughably suggest that going into that fight people considered Tyson the one on the slide when it was in fact the exact opposite.

I disagree with the Razor Rudduck fights being his "best", when plenty of people to this day think Richard Steele's stoppage of Ruddock in the 1st fight was premature & reeked of corruption for Don King. The Ruddock fights were tough fights. He didn't blow through Ruddock like he did Holmes, Spinks, Bruno, or Williams.

Now, I do agree with you that Holyfield had a tough mid-90s, but Tyson had a tougher mid-90s, being in prison and all and completely inactive.

He was 3 years past the Bowe trilogy that is legendary. Tyson was 7-8 years earlier in '88, '89. No post-Douglas fight is Tyson at his best. None of them.

You seem to be obsessed with the marketing of Tyson, which still marketed him as "The Baddest Man on the Planet", and saw him knock out no hopers like Bruce Seldon & Buster Mathis, Jr.That's why he was favored, not because he did anything great after getting out of prison

Holyfield, even after Tyson won the heavyweight title again and should've won it even after that at age 46 against Valuev and was brutally robbed, so no, he wasn't completely shot, even into his 40s, when he was beating the crap out of a 7ft tall man a hundred pounds heavier and a decade younger.

And yes, I was alive to watch all of these fights, which is how I know when Tyson was at his peak and when he was a shell of himself.