Tyson vs Holyfield - who of them is better fighter?

[BoxBuzz]

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.

Well that seems more than"2sense" worth of logic to me.......The only thing that makes a good argument here is if you want to claim that Tyson was amazing up to the day he lost it....and then inexplicably he simply was never that good again. It's not impossible to imagine....so the argument would be that at his peak he might do better against Holy. But how long you last IS part of how GOOD you were. Isn't it? So point again to Holyfield who is likely going to rival big George for endurance...even if he doesn't score the ulitmate upset win like George did.

[dajuggernaut]

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.

Frazier was 26.
Tyson was 21.
It looks more impressive that a kid so young could do what he did.

Going into the fight...
Foster lost four times.
Spinks was undefeated.
Beating an undefeated fighter looks better.

The hype job that followed Tyson everywhere he went. He was the baddest man on the planet.
The first round knockout. I know it's splitting hairs and Frazier did his job relatively early in the 2nd but it's just something about 1st round knockouts that are impressive.
Spinks amateur background compared to Fosters.
Spinks is seen by most as the better light heavyweight of the two in an all-time sense.
The fact that Tyson retired Spinks who wasn't all that old or shot coupled with the above reasons all make it look on paper as the much better victory.

[Robinson]

No you guys are right...lets re-write history. Tyson was shit.

Had Jess Willard or Benjamin Brain been in the ring with Spink
that night he would heve lost quciker.

Boy would 188lb Bob Foster have done a number on 35yo Holmes
he would have KO'd him inside of 8. And Cooney, imagine Foster
landing clean on him. It would have been lights out in seconds.

Nothing Tyson did was ever worthy of praise, he was a monster
outside the ring, so his in ring success should be marred as such.


Heres a question...

if both fights are comparable ...

then why did nearly every expert have Frazier to beat Foster ?

Yet Tyson-Spinks actually had debate and many an 'expert' buzzing
with predictions. One thing no one had...Tyson KO1.

[dempseyfire]

No you guys are right...lets re-write history. Tyson was shit.

Had Jess Willard or Benjamin Brain been in the ring with Spink
that night he would heve lost quciker.

Boy would 188lb Bob Foster have done a number on 35yo Holmes
he would have KO'd him inside of 8. And Cooney, imagine Foster
landing clean on him. It would have been lights out in seconds.

Nothing Tyson did was ever worthy of praise, he was a monster
outside the ring, so his in ring success should be marred as such.


Heres a question...

if both fights are comparable ...

then why did nearly every expert have Frazier to beat Foster ?

Yet Tyson-Spinks actually had debate and many an 'expert' buzzing
with predictions. One thing no one had...Tyson KO1.

I am sure you had some people predicting a first round Tyson KO.

Robinson, I don't know who Benjamin Brain is. And stop bringing up Jess Willard . . .you are better than John Galt.

Think of it this way . . .had Spinks before his 175 domination gone up to HW and lost to say John Tate and Tim Witherspoon . . .would the Tyson fight had been seen as 'big' as it was???

No, just as the Foster fight wasn't seen as some 'big' victory.

You also had the bigger hype machines trying to sell a nation-wide PPV for Tyson-Spinks. Thus tons of people exaggerating Spink's chances. JUST like in Lewis-Tyson . . .how many 'experts' who knew better actually predicted a Tyson upset? I'm NOT saying they are equivalent examples, but I'm saying you have to look at the victory for what it was in hindsight, not how it was portrayed at the time. Spink's only claims above 200 were barely edging a 35 year old Holmes in the first fight, getting a gift in the rematch, KO'ing an inactive and substance-addicted Cooney, and knocking out the famed Tangstad. That's it. A solid win. Fine. Just like Frazier ko'ing Foster is a solid win.

A great, career-defining win?? Not in my book. Tyson's victories over Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs etc. were more impressive to me.

[squiggy]

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

I agree with this post, and I think the Holmes/Stewart fight comparisons are good ones.*
Prior to the Holyfield fights, it wasn't really clear if post-jail Tyson was the same as what in hindsight we can now call prime Tyson. Who had he fought? I had to look it up to remember their names. McNeeley, Mathis Jr., Bruno and Seldon. That's it. And I don't recall any of them doing anything but hold on to him. That was a big part of Holyfield's strategy as well, but he also exposed the fact that Tyson's skills had deteriorated. Yes, that took talent on Evander's part, but no, it didn't settle the prime vs. prime question.
This also backs up mugabi's point about Holyfield being much more accomplished, because it's ridiculous for Tyson's prime to be as short as it was. Regardless, I think prime Tyson takes prime Holyfield.

* [edit regarding the Holmes fights] Of course it should be acknowledged that Larry grew a lot in the early days of his comeback and came up with a much cagier style of fighting, whereas he didn't seem to have a plan against Tyson.

[Robinson]

I agree Tyson's win over Berbick in two, Tubbs in two, are pretty damned impressive
Tyson's destruction of Spinks was big then and in hind sight. I know Holmes was
rusty, inactive, 38years and had no warm up bout....but Tyson's KO over him was
by far for me his best win.

Anyhow you look at it, Spinks was undefeated, was a pretty dominant LHW, beat the
'linear' HW champ, and managed 3 defences of his HW title. However you look at it
as great as Bob Foster is, he never did that.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Spinks amateur background compared to Fosters.
Spinks is seen by most as the better light heavyweight of the two in an all-time sense.
The fact that Tyson retired Spinks who wasn't all that old or shot coupled with the above reasons all make it look on paper as the much better victory.

--- I stay out of 90% of the Tyson threads because he's the boxing equivalent to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Truth has no meaning in an blind ideological conflict.

Truth is that Ibro ranks Lewis, Tyson, and Evan as 12-13-14 respectively, essentially even. Foster is ranked 5th, and Spinks 7th, again, essentially even.

Amateur baubles are nice, but perhaps an indication of opportunity. Some fighters don't get brilliant amateur grooming and Foster's was mostly in his Air Force stint where he does win a silver medal in the Pan Am Games in 59, a minor point but an indication his considerable talent.

Spinks gets underrated by politics of the day and a relatively short career that sees him never avenging his defeat or never crawling off the canvas to KO a rampaging monster, attributes that seem to be important to some. Holmes never called Spinks a Joe Frazier Uncle Tom, but the lifelong implications are explicit as he maintains the illusion that Da Man stripped him of his Rocky record and that nobody ever beat him.

Spinks and Tyson end up being devalued by the ample number of Holmes fans who think he walks on Ali's water. Spinks also suffers by association with brother Neon who's seen as a clown, not a serious fighter, and Spinks himself was always "the other brother," always very low key, a honest soul not drawing attention to himself with the beating of the breast pronouncements of immortality or frothing about robberies.

Tyson of course suffers from an epic drama of painful decline and public humiliation since the Spinks fight that has no end in sight as we approach the 20th anniversary. 21 yr old Tyson was considered the finest heavyweight by consensus ever seen if not the finest fighter ever.

When you consider that he literally comes from about as low a background in boxing that you can find, equivalent to Saad Muhammed or today's Edison Miranda, has a very limited amateur background and at age 21 has literally blown the entire 80s top talents to smithereens as easy as a kid pops his bubble gum, well, we will never, ever see the likes of Tyson again.

One offs never to be duplicated have to be respected, and what's striking about the heavy division is the sheer wealth of incredibly unique greats, each with a signature physiology, style and career. Trying to rate them beyond the top spot is as specious as counting angels that can dance on the head of pins.

[observer1]

Like i said earlier, Tyson's Prime was like no other Boxer.

Even then, whilst he had troubles outside the ring, (nothing compared to later in life), he we was something else.

Had his career progressed normally like any other boxer, he would achieved so much more, but his insane amount of problems outside of the ring meant Tyson was a train-wreck waiting to happen.

I agree you get Tyson Fanboys that are unbearable and tedious, but aside from them, many casual "fans" feel Tyson, in boxing, in his prime, with his talent, was easily a top 5 HW.

[BoxBuzz]

And I have to say whether you can justify Tyson being as good as Holyfield or not, Holy had Mike's number and I'm of the opinion he likely beats Mike under just about any 1 to 1 circumstance. Via style, heart and durability. Mike could put on a good whuppin AND Holyfield could take it , suck it up and then deliver the goods.

As Observer states, Mike's prime had freakish qualities and I think it does allow reasonable people to claim that Mike at his best can be considered one of the best, but you don't have to limit the conversation to specifics of that nature to say the same of Holyfield.

[observer1]

And I have to say whether you can justify Tyson being as good as Holyfield or not, Holy had Mike's number and I'm of the opinion he likely beats Mike under just about any 1 to 1 circumstance. Via style, heart and durability. Mike could put on a good whuppin AND Holyfield could take it , suck it up and then deliver the goods.

As Observer states, Mike's prime had freakish qualities and I think it does allow reasonable people to claim that Mike at his best can be considered one of the best, but you don't have to limit the conversation to specifics of that nature to say the same of Holyfield.

Nobody is taking anything away from Holyfield. In his prime, he could hold his own against the majority of HW's, but i personally feel against Tyson, that won't happen in my opinion.

Unlike Tyson, Lewis and Holyfield had steady careers. Their Primes are difficult to distinguish, only a few bouts you can consider for them to be at their Peak.

However, there is an absolutely huge difference from Prime Tyson, and the Tyson that met Holyfield Post-Prison. So much, which is why may do not rate the Tyson-Holfield bouts.

Sure, it was crazy Holyfield winning, but there was the obvious factor of Tyson being shot to bits after Prison, almost appearing to be another Boxer

[Robinson]

I think I agree with what you said Broughton.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Fair's fair, though, Observer --- Holyfield was markedly past his peak when he beat Tyson as well. Granted, Tyson was further removed from his pomp, but let's not forget Holyfield was considered a done fighter at the time, & even in retrospect, his best days had passed him by when he stopped Tyson.

Prime-to-prime, head-to-head, I would favour Tyson, but not by much.

[BoxBuzz]

....and i think Holy would walk in as the underdog and walk out the winner. The problem here is some will say that Tyson was great until he met Holyfield ..or post prison....and some would say he was untested against a TRUE PEER. I'm leaning toward the untested scenario because I think he showed a lot of his REALITY against Douglas....something about his REAL SELF was revealed on that night. And what I saw on that night, would never work against a true warrior like Holyfield. Douglas was a TRUE WARRIOR for one night and look what happened to Mike. Mike even had Buster Douglas down and could not close the deal.

So to me that's the difference between Mike Tyson and the REAL DEAL. Mike had some people beat (Like Spinks) before he ever walked in the ring. Holy would NEVER be psyched out by Mike, and BELIEVED he could beat Mike....as he showed he could on two occasions. And I think he would anytime anywhere. This is strong mind vs a weak mind even if the weak minded individual had the chops to get it done, the stronger mind would likely always prevail IMHO.

[dempseyfire]

People have this mythological ideal of a 'prime Tyson'

Style-wise . . .Holyfield beats him every time.

Holyfield will not ever be bombed out from one punch by ANYONE. Tyson brought pressure but was not a volume puncher a la Frazier. Holyfield could use angles, his good jab, and superior inside fighting, as well as Tyson's bad habit of letting himself get clinched and not fighting out of clinches, and win a decision or late TKO EVERYTIME. How is Tyson going to beat Holyfield? Suddenly knock him out like he did Tubbs or Bruno? Holyfield is a far superior fighter to any of Tyson's late 80s victims (including the 38 year old Holmes who had trained for 3 weeks and hadn't fought in 3 years).

Watch Tyson vs Tillis, Tucker, Smith . . .even most of the rounds vs Thomas. Tyson after the early attack, even in his so-called prime with Rooney, would go into the bad habit of becoming a stalker following his man and looking for the one-punch. Vs an elite boxer with a chin, this spells trouble for Tyson every time. It's how such a so-called unbeatable monster at 24 years old could lose to a B level fighter in Douglas. Not the excuses of him partying with hookers and having problems with Don King. You would think Tyson was the first boxing champion to meddle with a bad promoter and sleep with whoars!!!

I believe, and it's been proven over time, that the Cus D'Amato peek a boo style is a very constricting style that renders a fighter helpless when he no longer can back his man up and once the opponent has figured out how to time your attacks from mid-range.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Strong, logical posts from both BoxBuzz & DempseyFire (Buzz tackled the mental aspect, Dempsey, the physical).

How does Tyson beat Holyfield? With a blend of speed & power Bert Cooper never had, I believe. Cooper was stylistically not dissimilar to Tyson, but it was one shot which hurt Holyfield badly. One punch from Foreman was enough to rattle Holyfield (his words), & though he was never seriously hurt in that bout, these fights (& the damage Bowe inflicted) debunk (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) the dogmatic assertion Tyson cannot hurt Holyfield. When they met in '96, Tyson was a one-punch hitter. Not so in the late 1980's. With faster hands & a more precise delivery system, Tyson would hit Holyfield with Cooper's picture-perfect right hand --- & then follow up with a punching-proficiency which Cooper could not. It's enough to KO almost any Heavyweight in history if he gets them hurt.

I think we can all agree Holyfield gets hit an awful lot as a Heavyweight, & always has. We can also concur he's a fighter, not a boxer. Physically overpowering Tyson was possible when Holyfield had a distinct advantage in endurance --- that would not be evident against a peak Tyson, whose stamina mightn't have been better than Holyfield's, but it wasn't much worse. Holyfield was a fader at Heavy, whereas Tyson tended to slow down & begin fighting in spurts.

Personally, I don't feel it matters too much. This bout ends in six. Holyfield gives up handspeed, power, defense, hasn't a massive edge in chin, lacks the punch to hurt Tyson (at least, early on --- watch Tyson-Ruddock I for an example of Tyson's under-rated jaw strength), & isn't an elusive target. He never met anyone with a blend of speed & power like the young Tyson.

Why I say I don't favour Tyson by much is for the same reasons Buzz essentially already sketched in. I consider it a reasonable prospect Holyfield intimidates him, & from there, anything's possible with Tyson. With the fire in the belly he had during the '80's, however...

[yiddo14]

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

I think you are missing their fights against Buster Douglas(Tyson- night, night! Holy smashed him)
when comparing them against people they have both fought.

Also, I don't remember Holy beating Lewis? I vaguely remember a few who have not watched much boxing over the years try and claim he deserved the re-match(believe me, he didn't. Lewis won both fights, just the first was a complete domination whereas the 2nd was closer)but I certainly don't recall Lewis losing to Holy.

I tend to think that Holyfield beats Tyson at ANY point in their respective careers. Tyson never beat a great fighter and I simply cannot envisage him beating such a warrior as Holy.
Prime Holy(Lewis and Bowe)beats a prime Tyson. Mike didn't have the minerals to beat these beasts!

[Goodnight, Irene]

Bowe was too hittable, & Lewis simply too slow, to have dealt with a peak Tyson. He'd have gotten to both.

[Adler]

At this moment:

Holyfield 23
Tyson 14

[Goodnight, Irene]

DaJuggernaut...

"Frazier was 26.
Tyson was 21.
It looks more impressive that a kid so young could do what he did..."

Hmmm. Well, I hadn't considered it from that angle. I usually just examine the fighters' peak period. I suppose you have a point regarding Tyson's age, but, ultimately, when you're hot, you're hot, right? I think Tyson was at his peak, so it probably shouldn't count for much that he was so young. Something, but not a whole lot, in reality. Your peak is your peak, irrespective of age.

"...Going into the fight...
Foster lost four times.
Spinks was undefeated.
Beating an undefeated fighter looks better..."

Well, if you're just going to go by numbers & nothing else, they probably have a job for you at HBO

Obviously, Joe Louis reigned consecutively for many more years than Muhammad Ali. He never lost the belt. He won more fights, & lost fewer. Is that all there is to that equation?

"...The hype job that followed Tyson everywhere he went. He was the baddest man on the planet.
The first round knockout. I know it's splitting hairs and Frazier did his job relatively early in the 2nd but it's just something about 1st round knockouts that are impressive..."

That doesn't go to any length in explaining why Tyson's win is better. It was a first-round KO, which is nice & shiny & pretty, is how I read your statement.

"...Spinks amateur background compared to Fosters..."

Immaterial. Completely.

"...Spinks is seen by most as the better light heavyweight of the two in an all-time sense..."

I would dispute that. Opinions would be tightly-divided, if anything, with a marginal edge to Foster, IMO. At any rate, peak-to-peak, it's desperately close, & keep in mind --- Foster was far closer to the peak of his powers than was Spinks.

"...The fact that Tyson retired Spinks who wasn't all that old or shot coupled with the above reasons all make it look on paper as the much better victory..."

He wasn't shot, but he was past it (unlike Foster), & he laid down. Foster, conversely, had no such choice. Unlike Spinks, he was divorced from his senses. Again, "on-paper" doesn't count for a lot in boxing. On paper, Marciano KO'd Louis. End of story?

Here's how I see it --- Frazier beat a fighter in Foster who didn't accomplish as much as Spinks did at Heavyweight, but who was far closer to his peak as a fighter when he met Frazier than was the Spinks who fought Tyson. Foster didn't have severe knee troubles, as did Spinks. Foster had held the LHW crown as recently as just two years prior --- Spinks took the same title a whopping seven years prior to fighting Tyson. Spinks wasn't shot, but he was a (relatively) old thirty-one. Foster was far fresher, &, again --- at best, you could say Spinks was possibly better than Foster as a fighter, if they were both at the peak of their powers only.

I'm not disputing Tyson's level of credit for crushing Spinks here, necessarily --- I'm simply saying, if he indeed does deserve more credit than Frazier for his destruction of Foster, it is NO WAY in hell deservedly by the margin it seems to be. The victories are comparable. The hyperbole isn't close.

[overhand_right]

Tyson in his peak was so good he didnt need to avenge losses or come from behind.

Thats because there was no Holyfields, Bowes and Lewis's in his day.

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.

And look how Foreman destroys Fraziers and Norton, he's therefore a shoe in to destroy Muhammad Ali!!! Oh, wait... It doesn't work like that.

[overhand_right]

Sure, it was crazy Holyfield winning, but there was the obvious factor of Tyson being shot to bits after Prison, almost appearing to be another Boxer

Obvious? Did you even follow boxing back then?

Tyson was regarded as the King of the heavies as soon as he finished Bruno in 3 brutal & highly impressive rds in March 96. Look at the covers and stories of Boxing Monthly (The Baddest Man On The Planet Is Back), The Ring, KO, Tyson was 'The Man' again. He certainly was not looking 'shot'. He didn't look shot against Seldon (BM: 'Man & Superman: There's Tyson, and then theres The Rest').

He came out the same explosive & aggressive fashion against Holyfield but this time when his opening onslaught didn't deter Holyfield and he faced - only for the second time in his career - a man with a game plan trying to win & testing his willpower, Tyson again fell behind, stayed behind, and was later brutally stopped.

Its the same result in 1990 or in 1996 or 2020, Holyfield always diffuses the Tyson bomb.

[yiddo14]

Bowe was too hittable, & Lewis simply too slow, to have dealt with a peak Tyson. He'd have gotten to both.

In your opinion
We will just have to agree to dis-agree on this one I think!

Take all 3 fighters on their very best night ever and you have Tyson lying flat on his back getting counted out between rounds 8-11 against both Lewis and Bowe.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Its the same result in 1990 or in 1996 or 2020, Holyfield always diffuses the Tyson bomb.

--- Yes, the kiddos were always mightily impressed with post prison Tyson, so much so that every fighter who beat him no matter mentally and physically shot he was received a huge boost in the ratings and purses.

They didn't fight in 1990, Douglas, Tillman, and Stewert got drafted for those duties. In 2020, odds are Tyson will be long expired and Evan Field will be doing a turnip in diapers impersonation. 1996 is the only thing that salvages the uneven heavyweight career of Evan Field.

10-6-2 in heavy title fights, 24-10-2 heavyweight record, and if we include his earlier career of cruisers and LHs, it goes to 16-6-2 in title fights, 42-10-2 career in spite of turning pro the year before Tyson, not losing 5 yrs of his prime, and padding out his record 5 yrs after Tyson retired.

Tyson is 12-4 in title fights, 50-6 in his career, generally superior heavy numbers on top of never having suffered being KOed by a middleweight or passed around a circle of Russians like a tramp picked up after a night on the town.

Speaking of which, the prevailing dubious logic states: "Its the same result in 1990 or in 1996 or 2020, JT detonates the Evan Field bumb."

[overhand_right]

Citing all the numbers in the world wont add a Lewis or Bowe or Holyfield to Tysons resume, nor deduct a Buster Douglas.

Talking about the James Toney fight? Christ, who was Tyson losing to before he was even Holyfields age that night? Kevin McBride and Danny Williams.

Trying to wheel out numbers and not talking about the quality of the fighters contained within them is flawed and extremely lame. Clutching at straws, the Tyson-freaks.

[dempseyfire]

Strong, logical posts from both BoxBuzz & DempseyFire (Buzz tackled the mental aspect, Dempsey, the physical).

How does Tyson beat Holyfield? With a blend of speed & power Bert Cooper never had, I believe. Cooper was stylistically not dissimilar to Tyson, but it was one shot which hurt Holyfield badly. One punch from Foreman was enough to rattle Holyfield (his words), & though he was never seriously hurt in that bout, these fights (& the damage Bowe inflicted) debunk (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) the dogmatic assertion Tyson cannot hurt Holyfield. When they met in '96, Tyson was a one-punch hitter. Not so in the late 1980's. With faster hands & a more precise delivery system, Tyson would hit Holyfield with Cooper's picture-perfect right hand --- & then follow up with a punching-proficiency which Cooper could not. It's enough to KO almost any Heavyweight in history if he gets them hurt.

I think we can all agree Holyfield gets hit an awful lot as a Heavyweight, & always has. We can also concur he's a fighter, not a boxer. Physically overpowering Tyson was possible when Holyfield had a distinct advantage in endurance --- that would not be evident against a peak Tyson, whose stamina mightn't have been better than Holyfield's, but it wasn't much worse. Holyfield was a fader at Heavy, whereas Tyson tended to slow down & begin fighting in spurts.

Personally, I don't feel it matters too much. This bout ends in six. Holyfield gives up handspeed, power, defense, hasn't a massive edge in chin, lacks the punch to hurt Tyson (at least, early on --- watch Tyson-Ruddock I for an example of Tyson's under-rated jaw strength), & isn't an elusive target. He never met anyone with a blend of speed & power like the young Tyson.

Why I say I don't favour Tyson by much is for the same reasons Buzz essentially already sketched in. I consider it a reasonable prospect Holyfield intimidates him, & from there, anything's possible with Tyson. With the fire in the belly he had during the '80's, however...

I don't concure Holyfield is a 'fighter, not a boxer' . . Holyfield was never a Bonavena-esque brawler. He had solid boxing skills and could outbox Tyson. And yes he could hurt Tyson (as he did in 1996) Ruddock was a bigger one-shot guy, for sure, but he was an awful combination puncher and never set anything up . . .Mike saw his punches coming from a mile away. Holyfield always wore guys down with his combination punching and punch variety. As for Holyfield going out in 6, besides the Bowe Hepatitis bout, you are honestly going to say a guy who throughout his career took flush shots from the likes of Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, Foreman, and yes Mike himself, is getting bombed out in 6? You don't really believe that!!

And Tyson in the 80s was not a Dempsey/Frazier volume guy . . sure he could follow up with a combination, but Evander would just clinch him and then Tyson would just sit there and get out of his rythym. For being such a devastating offensive machine, I am amazed that the likes of Smith and Tillis were able to neutralize Tyson's offense so easily. I also don't buy Tyson being any slower at 30 years old. A less disciplined fighter, inferior stamina . . sure. But look at the finishing combos he had with Mathis Jr and Bruno . . he didn't look any slower than he was in 1988.

And then, why is Tyson getting excused in 96 but Holyfield is talked like he was in his prime. Holyfield's final fight in his absolute prime to me was the FIRST Bowe fight. Looking at the Bowe rematch, Mercer, Moorer, Csyz . . he's clearly not the same guy who moved up to HW and won the title during 1988-1992. Holyfield was past it as Tyson was but Holyfield was simply a better fighter