most ferocious boxer
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Yes, and Tyson with his forearms, elbows, arm bending and occasional biting was a picture of sportsmanship.
Anyway, if you want to bring illegal tactics into it then, yes, that just adds to my point about Holyfield's ferocity. Holyfield will bend the rules if he has to, and that makes him all the more dangerous. Just goes to my point.
Anyway, if you want to bring illegal tactics into it then, yes, that just adds to my point about Holyfield's ferocity. Holyfield will bend the rules if he has to, and that makes him all the more dangerous. Just goes to my point.
Ifeelfine doesn't comprehend the basic rules of boxing.I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, and Tyson with his forearms, elbows, arm bending and occasional biting was a picture of sportsmanship.
Anyway, if you want to bring illegal tactics into it then, yes, that just adds to my point about Holyfield's ferocity. Holyfield will bend the rules if he has to, and that makes him all the more dangerous. Just goes to my point.
Standard for the clueless.
Billygoat Holyfield butted his way to "victory" twice against Tyson.
-
dr_devious
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 5346
- Joined: 29 Dec 2005, 09:19
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Yes dear, I comprehend the rules of boxing. But most great fighters bent the rules, and you're full of shit to suggest that Holyfield was some kind of exception. Greb, Dempsey, Marciano, Duran, Monzon, Hagler... whoever you want to name, plenty of greats knew how to bend the rules. Your knowledge of boxing history is as narrow as your ability to analyze a fighter.granberry wrote:Ifeelfine doesn't comprehend the basic rules of boxing.I Feel Fine wrote:Yes, and Tyson with his forearms, elbows, arm bending and occasional biting was a picture of sportsmanship.
Anyway, if you want to bring illegal tactics into it then, yes, that just adds to my point about Holyfield's ferocity. Holyfield will bend the rules if he has to, and that makes him all the more dangerous. Just goes to my point.
Standard for the clueless.
Billygoat Holyfield butted his way to "victory" twice against Tyson.
And head butts weren't the only reason why Holyfield beat Tyson, contrary to what Tyson's fans would say. But I do appreciate your naive analysis of Holyfield, I would also like to live in a perfect world where everyone follows the rules, but if you're going to downgrade Holyfield then there's a whole lot of other fighters who are going down with him, including Mike.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Holyfield was pathetic against an old Larry Holmes.
Compare with Tyson against a younger Holmes.
When Bert Cooper had Holyfield in trouble and was about to knock Holyfield down, Holyfield had to be rescued by stooge referee Mills Lane---
with a perfectly timed standing count to enable Holyfield to recover.
Holyfield "won" the title from a Buster Douglas who didn't train and didn't even bother to show up.
Holyfield was the foulest fighter ever to hold the title.
The referees were non-existent in his fights.
And it got worse as he got older.
They might as well have let him bring a baseball bat into the ring.
I am definitely not impressed with Holyfield.
Compare with Tyson against a younger Holmes.
When Bert Cooper had Holyfield in trouble and was about to knock Holyfield down, Holyfield had to be rescued by stooge referee Mills Lane---
with a perfectly timed standing count to enable Holyfield to recover.
Holyfield "won" the title from a Buster Douglas who didn't train and didn't even bother to show up.
Holyfield was the foulest fighter ever to hold the title.
The referees were non-existent in his fights.
And it got worse as he got older.
They might as well have let him bring a baseball bat into the ring.
I am definitely not impressed with Holyfield.
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
The Holyfield & Tyson vs. Holmes argument is limited. Holyfield was not a super-hitter the way Tyson was. He never scored many dramatic, early KO's. It's got nothing to do with who's better, but who hits harder. That's plainly Tyson. However, Holmes at least had some form behind him when he met Holyfield. The one that met Tyson, while younger (still washed-up), was battling ring-rust. Holmes was better when he faced Holyfield.
I would concur that Holyfield got away with an awful lot during his fights with Tyson, but, really, who feels bad for him? Tyson was quite the dirty fighter in the late 80's (elbows along the ropes & such), & in Holyfield, he just met someone who was plain better at it, & better at getting away with it. Tyson is no hero or hard-luck story, so I feel no sympathy for him, & that's before he blackens my sport with the earbite. Not the first time he injured boxing, or the last.
Holyfield beat him. Two dirty fighters, one was better. Fair play to him. But, I will say that I am one of the relatively few who believes in a peak-for-peak match-up, Tyson would defeat Holyfield.
I would concur that Holyfield got away with an awful lot during his fights with Tyson, but, really, who feels bad for him? Tyson was quite the dirty fighter in the late 80's (elbows along the ropes & such), & in Holyfield, he just met someone who was plain better at it, & better at getting away with it. Tyson is no hero or hard-luck story, so I feel no sympathy for him, & that's before he blackens my sport with the earbite. Not the first time he injured boxing, or the last.
Holyfield beat him. Two dirty fighters, one was better. Fair play to him. But, I will say that I am one of the relatively few who believes in a peak-for-peak match-up, Tyson would defeat Holyfield.
Last edited by Goodnight, Irene on 26 Dec 2007, 16:55, edited 1 time in total.
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Yep that Holywhoever guy was just an asterisk in the book of boxing no doubt. Good thing we got a man with vision like yourself, a man who's ready, available and willing to go on the record with the "truths that must be told".Collins2000 wrote:granberry wrote:
I am definitely not impressed with Holyfield.
It takes a man of courage. Our man on the cutting edge, http://www.granberry.con
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Wow. Yeah, I'll let dingleberry's responses speak for themselves. I guess its not surprising, though, if you're not impressed by Ali, imagine what you would think of Evander. I guess greatness isn't always obvious, some people are only impressed by flashy knock outs. Dingleberry must be another one of these.
-
SD-Prophecy
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 17
- Joined: 21 Sep 2007, 18:39
-
Goodnight, Irene
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 9463
- Joined: 24 Sep 2007, 04:43
-
Diamond WEAPON
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 1729
- Joined: 19 Nov 2006, 01:32