Tyson vs Holyfield - who of them is better fighter?

Adler · Post by **Adler** » 14 Jan 2009, 19:12

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 rubbish. 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?

fistic mystic · Post by **fistic mystic** » 14 Jan 2009, 22:42

Holy is underrated. I really believe he's one of the greats.

ben geoghegan · Post by **ben geoghegan** » 15 Jan 2009, 03:41

Tyson more popular but Holyfield the better resume. Not to mention Holyfield won head to head. That ends discussion

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 15 Jan 2009, 04:34

Both put bums on seats, then and now.

Adler · Post by **Adler** » 15 Jan 2009, 04:57

Hallo, everybody.
What about fight between them in 1989 (that was quite real than cause of rattings)?
Evander weighted then average about 92-93 kg, was very sharp and workrated. Mike's shape was very doubtful than because of divorce with Givens and dismissals of Runi.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 15 Jan 2009, 05:23

Had it hapened in 1989 or 1991 both occasions when it was suggested
would have made for a sensational fight.

As fast punching and active as Holy was in 1989, I do favour Tyson
at this time.

BUT....

In 1991 something inside of me picks Holyfield, but damned they would
have been fun fights.

What hurts Tyson as far as legacy is his personal life idiocy. Getting
jailed, suspended and suspended all at important points in his career
robbed us as fans of his potential to win or lose against some tough
guys.

Holyfield on the other hand has essentially been active since 1985 and
has rarely missed a beat, while he has had his ups and downs and retirements
even today as an 'old' man he is still a top tier fighter.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 15 Jan 2009, 07:04

Peak-to-peak, I would favour Tyson, though I could be persuaded otherwise. I do think people get glib when saying, "Holyfield always would have beaten Tyson..." Maybe, maybe not.

Holyfield ranks infinitely higher on an accomplishment scale, it goes without saying. I rarely say it, but in my opinion, Tyson's career achievements, relative to the talent he showed as a fighter, are complete, utter, unadulterated garbage. In a way, that's me complimenting Tyson, because I recognise his talent as simply monstrous --- a rare breed of Heavyweight. However, it's a stern criticism as well, just as it appears to be --- he's one of the most appalling under-achievers of the 20th century. I think he ranks right up there.

One final note: Someone answer me this? Why are so many awe-struck by Tyson's decimation of Spinks, but don't bat an eyelid at what Frazier did to Foster? Someone tell me why Tyson's effort against an opponent no better than Foster at his best, & further removed from his pomp in 1988 than was Foster in 1970, gets more hype than Frazier's job, & not by a little, but by a country mile

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 15 Jan 2009, 07:35

Because Foster never beat a HW champion twice...and never KO'd
a Gerry Cooney.

And as talnted as Foster was, and as hard hitting he was a spindly
188lbs when he was destroyed by Frazier...even though Foster did
put up a great fight.

Where as Spinks was a solid 212lbs.

Tyson at some pretty damned impressive scalps and wins on his
belt leading up to his loss to Douglas. No one can deny that.

Holy on the other hand has put in the time and has been a relative
consistent performer. Tyson on the other hand has been in and
out...but his impact to non fans and fans alike will last some time.

Bricks · Post by **Bricks** » 15 Jan 2009, 09:33

Evander it would appear more strongly and beat Mike any time, any place, anywhere.
What opinions are?

This is the myth perpetuated by Teddy Atlas and is utter bullshit.
Imo the Tyson of the 80's beats the Holyfield of the 80's at any point.
The 1991 Tyson V Holyfield would have been a sensational fight for the ages!

Thereafter the Holyfield of the 90's and 2000's beats any version of Tyson from 1995-2005.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 15 Jan 2009, 09:46

Holyfield won head to head twice, Holyfield avenged losses, Holyfield won on fights when he was behind. Holy has wins over Bowe, Moorer, Tyson, Mercer, many believe he beat Lewis in the second fight. Holy is still out their beating the #3 ranked heavy in the world but being ripped off of the decision. Tyson, well Kevin McBride sent him to the abbatoir years ago.

Tyson, um, he beat. . . Spinks? Tony Tucker.. Ruddock? Eh, ah. um.

barbie · Post by **barbie** » 15 Jan 2009, 11:26

I prefer Tyson-the most aggressive fighter he had a wonderful style ((ofensywa)) but Holyfield was better

Bricks · Post by **Bricks** » 15 Jan 2009, 11:48

overhand_right wrote:Holyfield won head to head twice,Holyfield avenged losses, Holyfield won on fights when he was behind. Holy has wins over Bowe, Moorer, Tyson, Mercer, many believe he beat Lewis in the second fight. Holy is still out their beating the #3 ranked heavy in the world but being ripped off of the decision. Tyson, well Kevin McBride sent him to the abbatoir years ago.

Tyson, um, he beat. . . Spinks? Tony Tucker.. Ruddock? Eh, ah. um.

Tyson in his peak was so good he didnt need to avenge losses or come from behind. Look at how badly Tyson beat Holmes and than look at how Holy struggled with a Holmes 4 years further removed from his prime. Look at how peak Tyson pulverised Alex Stewart and than look at Holys two struggles. Tyson in his 80's prime beats Holyfield in his late 90's prime.
Dont forget in the first fight Tyson was beating evander until he got butted and lost his equilibrium.

All of that said I just watched Lewis v Holy I and II and Holy was very impressive even at an old age when he couldnt fight more than 45 seconds a round.

Holyfield beat Bowe and Lewis and Valuev and others. On an achievement basis he is way above Tyson. I have Holyfield as one of the top 6 HW's ever. But on a both meet at their very best on 1 day I would back 80's Tyson with Rooney ,Jacobs and Baranksi in his corner

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 Jan 2009, 18:38

Didn't Evander settle this question? Twice?

Yes....I think so.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 15 Jan 2009, 21:41

Peak v Peak, Tyson. imo

BoxBuzz wrote:Didn't Evander settle this question? Twice?

Yes....I think so.

So, according to that theory, Kevin McBride is better than Tyson too?

allworld80 · Post by **allworld80** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:35

observer1 wrote:Peak v Peak, Tyson. imo

BoxBuzz wrote:Didn't Evander settle this question? Twice?

Yes....I think so.
So, according to that theory, Kevin McBride is better than Tyson too?

Tyson and Holyfield were reasonably close to even as far as careers went at the time they fought. The point is valid.

dajuggernaut · Post by **dajuggernaut** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:43

observer1 wrote:Peak v Peak, Tyson. imo

BoxBuzz wrote:Didn't Evander settle this question? Twice?

Yes....I think so.
So, according to that theory, Kevin McBride is better than Tyson too?

Yeah, because that was a legit win.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 Jan 2009, 22:52

Robinson wrote:Because Foster never beat a HW champion twice...and never KO'd
a Gerry Cooney.

And as talnted as Foster was, and as hard hitting he was a spindly
188lbs when he was destroyed by Frazier...even though Foster did
put up a great fight.

Where as Spinks was a solid 212lbs.

Tyson at some pretty damned impressive scalps and wins on his
belt leading up to his loss to Douglas. No one can deny that.

Holy on the other hand has put in the time and has been a relative
consistent performer. Tyson on the other hand has been in and
out...but his impact to non fans and fans alike will last some time.

So the fact that SPinks put on more weight makes it a better win?

Cooney had like 1 fight in 3 years when he fought Spinks, and had substance abuse problems to boot. Spinks got a gift vs Holmes in the rematch. His credentials as a HW are nothing to write home about. Neither were Fosters, but Goodnight brings up a fair point.

There was loads of hype leading up to Tyson-Spinks that isn't/wasn't justified by reality.

overhand · Post by **overhand** » 17 Jan 2009, 01:54

Peak Tyson vs peak Holyfield if a time machine could arrange it would have been a terrific fight. I reckon that Tyson would have won either by a very late ko or a close decision. He was too precise and hard punching and his agility and defense was too good and Holyfields tendency to mix it up would mean he would eat too much leather to win this one. But would have been a very terrific fight and a hard struggle for both of them.

Tyson left his fight in the prison (I know, his fault, but it did affect him) and after prison he wasnt the same fighter anymore. He still had the power but the speed. reflexes and defense were not the same as before.

My2Sense · Post by **My2Sense** » 17 Jan 2009, 04:08

BoxBuzz wrote:Didn't Evander settle this question? Twice?

Yes....I think so.

Sure did. That was the whole damn point of those fights, as pretty much EVERYONE agreed - that is, until the guy most people picked to win didn't.

My2Sense · Post by **My2Sense** » 17 Jan 2009, 04:09

observer1 wrote: So, according to that theory, Kevin McBride is better than Tyson too?

What exactly was Tyson-McBride ever intended to settle? When was that ever billed as "the fight that would answer the question..."?

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 17 Jan 2009, 04:42

Foster never beat the HW champion....Spinks beat Holmes twice. Whether
you agree with the scores or not, he still won.

Spinks was undefeated. Spinks was never beaten by the HW's he fought.

So yes, it is a bigger achievement than Fraziers win over Bob Foster.

Especially considering Tyson did it in quicker and more decisive fashion
than Frazier's destruction of Foster.

And even if Cooney was nothing special at the time, he was still a big
man that hit hard, Foster had no one on his resume to match that win.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 17 Jan 2009, 12:51

All valid, but Foster was much closer to his prime against Frazier than was Spinks against Tyson. When two fighters are as close in class as these two, & one has shot knees & lays down, & the other is fresher & nearer his prime, why shouldn't Frazier's win over Foster --- if not count for as much --- get at least comparable recognition (which it certainly does not)? As for the nature of the fights, I hardly see a discernible difference at all. Both Foster & Spinks were blown away in a matter of minutes, if not sooner.

Tyson may've ended things slightly quicker, but Frazier's quarry didn't voluntarily lay down.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Jan 2009, 13:28

Robinson wrote:Foster never beat the HW champion....Spinks beat Holmes twice. Whether
you agree with the scores or not, he still won.

Spinks was undefeated. Spinks was never beaten by the HW's he fought.

So yes, it is a bigger achievement than Fraziers win over Bob Foster.

Especially considering Tyson did it in quicker and more decisive fashion
than Frazier's destruction of Foster.

And even if Cooney was nothing special at the time, he was still a big
man that hit hard, Foster had no one on his resume to match that win.

It all depends on WHO the HW champion was. Foster went up against a prime of his life Joe Frazier. Spinks vs a bloated past it 35 year old Holmes. If Spinks fights Frazier, he's getting knocked out as well. If a prime Foster fought the 1985 Holmes, he doesn't have a solid chance of winning?

Of course it matters if a large proportion (I'd say majority) felt Holmes got robbed in the rematch. You can't go completely by the record books in boxing.

Spinks didn't fight as many top HWs as Foster did nor nearly as many period, you have his 4-1 HW record vs Foster's 17-5 record.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 17 Jan 2009, 14:37

Well if the Tyson supporters (and I Like Mikes skills and abilites at his best!) want it there way they can always say that Evander would always win one on one, but that does not always define the winner as the better fighter. But I don't think you can bring the McBride factor into the equation the way that Obsever1 attempted to.

If you do a rundown on every common opponent I think it still sort of adds up in Evander's favor correct? E.H. was always competitive with Lewis right? Tyson was not. Better outcome for Evander vs Douglas. I'm sure that might lead us somewhere in this debate.

Can someone do an assessment on common opponents for illustration? Maybe that might put some grease on the opinion pool.

My2Sense · Post by **My2Sense** » 17 Jan 2009, 16:39

BoxBuzz wrote:Well if the Tyson supporters (and I Like Mikes skills and abilites at his best!) want it there way they can always say that Evander would always win one on one, but that does not always define the winner as the better fighter. But I don't think you can bring the McBride factor into the equation the way that Obsever1 attempted to.

If you do a rundown on every common opponent I think it still sort of adds up in Evander's favor correct? E.H. was always competitive with Lewis right? Tyson was not. Better outcome for Evander vs Douglas. I'm sure that might lead us somewhere in this debate.

Can someone do an assessment on common opponents for illustration? Maybe that might put some grease on the opinion pool.

Yes, Holyfield has the superior record against common opponents. He's never been beaten by a guy Tyson beat while Tyson has been beaten by a guy Holy beat.

That's on top of having owned Tyson twice himself, and being clearly the more accomplished fighter overall.

Tyson was completely outclassed and helpless against Buster Douglas who was himself outclassed and helpless against Holyfield. The difference in class between them couldn't be more obvious.

There's no basis at all for claiming Tyson is better than Holyfield. It makes about as much sense as claiming Tony Tucker was better than Tyson. You could invent some kind of excuse for Tucker actually losing to Tyson in the ring (his "bad hand" excuse should do nicely), then say that he stopped Douglas shortly before Douglas whupped Tyson, plus he gave a much tougher fight to Lennox than Tyson did. See what I mean?

Most people who still try to claim Tyson is somehow better than Holy are people that are just clinging to pre-conceived notions of him. Tyson is one of those fighters that people jumped the gun and made up their minds about while his career was still unfolding, and just can't get their initial opinions of him out of their heads.