Tyson vs Holyfield - who of them is better fighter?

[chiricahua]

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.

I agree.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

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.

--- You wheeled out phantasmagorical numbers or did you forget?

It's numbers as I pointed out on another thread that separate Joe Grimm from JJohnson and Fitz. Without numbers, You, Butterbean, John Ruiz and Joe Louis are equal.

I didn't just try to wheel out numbers, I highlighted real world numbers and facts. Boxing is the only sport where excellence is penalized as failure. Tyson already has a Lewis, Evan Field and Buster Douglas on his CV. That it doesn't fit with your definition of failure or success doesn't matter. He's already rated 13th by Ibro ahead of Evan Field and I'm confident that futures will better understand his impact and his position improves.

If you want to rate Evan Field ahead of Tyson, no problem. Just don't make up phantasmagorical numbers to tell us porkies.

[overhand_right]

Sounds like a whole lot of b#llocks and weak jokes to disguise your lack of arguments.

Keep going over the numbers mate, the reality is November 1996 when Holyfield battered Tyson senseless.

Ouch, must be hard for you to watch.

[yiddo14]

Sounds like a whole lot of b#llocks and weak jokes to disguise your lack of arguments.

Keep going over the numbers mate, the reality is November 1996 when Holyfield battered Tyson senseless.

Ouch, must be hard for you to watch.

Have you not heard, that wasn't Tyson in the Ring that night...just like it wasn't Tyson in the ring on February 11th 1990 dazed, confused and struggling to put his gumshield in his mouth correctly after Buster Douglas smashed him to the floor...
Infact, Tyson only ever entered the ring when he won convincingly and the fights against Douglas, Tillis, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride were not actually Tyson but a very good look a like.

Too many excuses for Tyson. Should of, could of, would of...DIDN'T

Not even top 10 Heavyweight, Holy, Lewis and Bowe beat him prime for prime and thats only from "his" era.

[dajuggernaut]

G,I

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.

Correct. Your peak is your peak. But lets look at it from the other angle for a current example. Bernard Hopkins at an older age. It's incredible what he is currently doing well into his 40's. People his age [and at Tyson's young age] shouldn't be winning in such dominating fashion. This is the #1 reason that people see it as the more impressive victory.

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 undefeated argument goes hand in hand with the hype job argument. To the general public beating an undefeated fighter regardless on who he fought is bigger than someone who has lost a handful of times. This has more to do with the Don Kings of the world making Tyson out to be an unstoppable beast. All of what I mentioned is geared towards an average boxing fan and to the general public who can at most name five active fighters. Someone like you who I'm assuming has an extensive library of tapes compared to the Average Joe who sees the Tyson-Spinks match-up on ESPN Classic at least once a month is going to have different opinions.

Beating him in one round

Again geared towards the general public and an average fan. One round is more impressive than two. Keep in mind that you wondered why people think the win is better. I know you seen far more fights than me and such I'm just stating why I and most people believe that the win is better.

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

Immaterial. Completely.

Depends what angle you look at it in. It's just another way to boost Tyson's win that he beat an Olympic Champion. Looks good on a resume.

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.

They go hand in hand with history. Just to note Ring Magazine had Spinks #3 and Foster #5 the last time they ranked the lightheavies.

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?

I put on paper for a reason. I have never seen Frazier-Foster. Tyson-Spinks is on all the time on ESPN Classic. It is more readily available to the public.

Your giving the public too much credit on how much you think they know about boxing. Go on the current scene right now and start a topic about Joe Frazier and Bob Foster...Frazier is most remembered for losing to Ali than anything else and most people never even heard of Foster. Do the same with Tyson and Spinks. You will get mixed opinions about Tyson but it is in general agreement that he was a monster in the sport. Larger than life. You'll get way more people that heard of Spinks partly because he is closer to the present than Foster and partly because of the boxing family he comes from.

To summarize...You make great points and no one is disputing them. But your knowledge seems to be too much for the average boxing fan to process. You think they are smarter then they actually are. The win is looked at as better because the way he was hyped up, his age, the amount of TV exposure it still gets and it happened much closer to the present time and is more fresh in people's memories.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Sounds like a whole lot of b#llocks and weak jokes to disguise your lack of arguments.

Keep going over the numbers mate, the reality is November 1996 when Holyfield battered Tyson senseless.

Ouch, must be hard for you to watch.

Have you not heard, that wasn't Tyson in the Ring that night...just like it wasn't Tyson in the ring on February 11th 1990 dazed, confused and struggling to put his gumshield in his mouth correctly after Buster Douglas smashed him to the floor...
Infact, Tyson only ever entered the ring when he won convincingly and the fights against Douglas, Tillis, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride were not actually Tyson but a very good look a like.

Too many excuses for Tyson. Should of, could of, would of...DIDN'T

Not even top 10 Heavyweight, Holy, Lewis and Bowe beat him prime for prime and thats only from "his" era.

That's, 'have,' not, 'of'

[Goodnight, Irene]

Well, obviously, we don't see it all the same way, but that was a great post, I have to admit (Juggernaut) --- Re: ESPN, though, I wish I had it, LOL! Stuck with Aussie Free-To-Air, mate --- get all my recent fights a few weeks after they happen, ordering online (Hate YouTube )

We agree about the hype following Tyson at the time is a big part of the reason the fight is so well-remembered, & you make a valid point about the weight of time, as well. I hadn't considered I give the general public too much credit. In Oz, no one on the street really knows anything about boxing. You should see the sickeningly ignorant write-ups rugby league journalists post in the newspapers as they pose as boxing scribes. No one knows any better, but, without exaggeration, I'd trust the take of almost anyone on this site over the papers, here. I get to assuming it's different with the average Joe in the States, but, really, I wouldn't know first-hand, as you do.

Btw, I hope you know the HBO line was a general joke, & not a shot at you

[yiddo14]

Sounds like a whole lot of b#llocks and weak jokes to disguise your lack of arguments.

Keep going over the numbers mate, the reality is November 1996 when Holyfield battered Tyson senseless.

Ouch, must be hard for you to watch.

Have you not heard, that wasn't Tyson in the Ring that night...just like it wasn't Tyson in the ring on February 11th 1990 dazed, confused and struggling to put his gumshield in his mouth correctly after Buster Douglas smashed him to the floor...
Infact, Tyson only ever entered the ring when he won convincingly and the fights against Douglas, Tillis, Holyfield, Lewis, Williams and McBride were not actually Tyson but a very good look a like.

Too many excuses for Tyson. Should of, could of, would of...DIDN'T

Not even top 10 Heavyweight, Holy, Lewis and Bowe beat him prime for prime and thats only from "his" era.

That's, 'have,' not, 'of'

It's early

Shaould'a, could'a, would'a

[bollox]

Holyfield easily. His mental superiority over Tyson's physical (potential) superiority was the difference between them

[Ambling Alp]

An earlier point was brought up about Tyson' in against Spinks and Frazier's against Foster. You can argue who was the better lightheavyweight, but Spinks was clearly a better heavyweight than Foster.
Foster simply couldn't decent heavyweights at all.
No way does he beat Holmes (even at that stage) or blow out Cooney (at that stage of Cooney's career). It's questionable if Foster would have even beat Stefan Tangstead.

Having said that, Holyfield was clearly better than Tyson.
Head to head Holyfield at about 80% beat Tyson at about 90%.
To rate Tyson higher than Holyfield the rest of his Tyson's career has to be clearly better; and it wasn't.
Beating Berbick, Thomas, Tubbs etc. doesn't make you better than Holyfield.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Head to head Holyfield at about 80% beat Tyson at about 90%.

--- What kind of nonsense are you talking of?

25% of Tyson's wins come after his initial conviction. 55% of Evan Field's wins come after that point. Clearly Tyson was done at or arguably before when his entire training and management team was switched over.

Are you gonna tell us next that 70% of Neon Leon beat 80% of Ali? Talk about phantasmagorical numbers of fantasy. Of course that was only about 65% of you talkin' I guess!

[BoxBuzz]

Guess we'll just have to settle for reality.....Holyfield 2....Tyson Zip

Was it that Tyson just lost it at a very early age? Or did Buster and Robin just take too much out of Mike? Guess we'll just never know.

I think we should not bring up the fact that Holyfield meets and defeats an eventual second time around champion in George Foreman, someone Tyson would never get into the ring with under any circumstances....... and we probably shouldn't even discuss the Bowe and Lewis dynamics...it just makes it all too one sided for Holy.

I think it all goes back to him never really being tested and when he finally was...he came up short.

[Ambling Alp]

Head to head Holyfield at about 80% beat Tyson at about 90%.

--- What kind of nonsense are you talking of?

25% of Tyson's wins come after his initial conviction. 55% of Evan Field's wins come after that point. Clearly Tyson was done at or arguably before when his entire training and management team was switched over.

Are you gonna tell us next that 70% of Neon Leon beat 80% of Ali? Talk about phantasmagorical numbers of fantasy. Of course that was only about 65% of you talkin' I guess!

Well, I don't know who Evan Field is, but I know that Evander Holyfield was far past his best when he beat Tyson.
Win/Losses records can be very decieving in boxing. A lot depends on who you are fighting and the stages of the fighters' careers.
Holyfield was in several tough fights while Tyson was jail.

Tyson wasn't "done" before the Holyfield fight. He was only 30 years and had taken relatively little punishment; certainly much less than Holyfield. Shortly before the Holyfield fight, Tyson beat an improved Frank Bruno easier than he then the first time.
If you love stats so much, consider that Tyson still only had one loss going into the first Holyfield fight.

Holyfield was 34, and had been in several tough fights. Almost all fighters decline considerably from they when are 30 until they are 34.

Holyfield was considered shot going into the fight, not Tyson.

If at the age of 30 you lose convincingly to someone that is 34 who has taken more punishment in his career than you have, you have nothing to cry about.

[My2Sense]

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!!!

Quite possibly the best post in this thread, and one of the best posts I've ever seen on Tyson period.

Many people have selective memories when it comes to Tyson. They remember his eye-catching explosive KOs, but they forget that often prior to getting those KOs or in other fights without KOs, he looked flawed and one-dimensional.

You would think Tyson was the first boxing champion to meddle with a bad promoter and sleep with whoars!!!

He certainly wasn't, Holyfield dealt with the exact same problems.

[My2Sense]

Who the hell is "Evan Field" and why is he being discussed in this thread??

[dajuggernaut]

Well, obviously, we don't see it all the same way, but that was a great post, I have to admit (Juggernaut) --- Re: ESPN, though, I wish I had it, LOL! Stuck with Aussie Free-To-Air, mate --- get all my recent fights a few weeks after they happen, ordering online (Hate YouTube )

We agree about the hype following Tyson at the time is a big part of the reason the fight is so well-remembered, & you make a valid point about the weight of time, as well. I hadn't considered I give the general public too much credit. In Oz, no one on the street really knows anything about boxing. You should see the sickeningly ignorant write-ups rugby league journalists post in the newspapers as they pose as boxing scribes. No one knows any better, but, without exaggeration, I'd trust the take of almost anyone on this site over the papers, here. I get to assuming it's different with the average Joe in the States, but, really, I wouldn't know first-hand, as you do.

Btw, I hope you know the HBO line was a general joke, & not a shot at you

All in good fun. I would love to work for HBO. 8)
It's good to get into a educated debate on these forums with no name calling and ending up agreeing to disagree.
Cheers.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I know that Evander Holyfield was far past his best when he beat Tyson.
Win/Losses records can be very decieving in boxing. A lot depends on who you are fighting and the stages of the fighters' careers.
Holyfield was in several tough fights while Tyson was jail.

Tyson wasn't "done" before the Holyfield fight. He was only 30 years and had taken relatively little punishment; certainly much less than Holyfield. Shortly before the Holyfield fight, Tyson beat an improved Frank Bruno easier than he then the first time.
If you love stats so much, consider that Tyson still only had one loss going into the first Holyfield fight.

--- Very nice stating the obvious. Reminds me of a schoolboy who can rap his ABCs but doesn't know how to read or write.

First off, there is no equivalency here. Evan Field was in tough fights from the gitgo as a mature fighter. Tyson never had a tough fight until Douglas, and a couple fights later with Ruddock. his 37th fight onwards. The reasons are obvious enough that I don't feel the need to state them.

Tyson did not beat Bruno easy either in the rematch. He took some huge whacks that he never used to take when training properly with a professional team, stunning him almost as bad as Buster did. He looked like a wild swinging club fighter because that is what he'd become. Say goodbye to the beautiful jab and combos, adios to the exquisite footwork, balance, body and head movement that allows him to slip inside the incoming and be in perfect position for the deadly counters. He's just a badly behaved clubfighter with freakish power now. What, you thought that 15 min of ring time with Peter The Mighty McNeely, Buster Freakin' Mathis, Bruno and Bruce Soft Spot Seldon is gonna prep him for a vicious 11 rd buttfest after 4 years of rust?

Tyson lost to Evan Field in his 47-48th fights. Where was Mr. Evan Field in his 47-48th fight? I'll tell you, he was being KTFO by a fatboy named Toney, and obliterated on the cards by Larry the Legend Donald. He already has 10 losses on his record in spite of starting an easy run as a fully mature man against LHs and cruisers in his first 16 fights, and he still ain't close to Tyson's 58 fight heavyweight career.

Nobody was making Evan Field a legend until he beats Tyson, and he was considered as shot then as he is now, yet nobody questions these fights? How a guy with a 20% KO ratio from Foreman onwards notches a TKO against Tyson? You ever bothered to compile a list of Evan Field's KO victims from Foreman onward? Cooper, Czyz, Tyson, Moorer, Bates, Maddalone.

Yet you're telling me that those fighters were in the class of the 90% Tyson phantasm you made up? The only fighter close in class is Moorer, another fighter who couldn't be bothered with training properly, but at least he had talent and pedigree. What, 80% of Evan Field KOed 90% of Moorer, ain't that how you'd put it? Wow!

Evan Field, 6 KOs in 18 yrs, think about it, and think about how Ibro lists Tyson above Evan Field in it's rankings. From the way you chaps sound, Tyson wouldn't even make your list of top 100 heavies your arguments are so childish.

Like I stated previous, have no problem with anyone ranking Evan Field over Tyson. It's revionist logic with phantasmagorical numbers I have a problem with. If Evan was better, he'd have a better record. He doesn't, but he does have 96/97 wins over Mike, that's it. Beating Ali didn't suddenly propel Leon over Ali in the rankings any more than Donald is propelled over Evan Field.

[BoxBuzz]

Maybe they are referring to "Evan's Field" a place in Phoenix where folks used to settle their disputes.....just a guess.

[overhand_right]

Holyfield has never been convicted of anything, so you can't hold the Evan Fields nonsense against him, unlike say James Toney.

As for steroid abuse, Mike Tyson in 1991 paid Razor Ruddock a huge wad of cash to NOT take a steroid test that Ruddock voluntarily took! Now that's very interesting.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Holyfield has never been convicted of anything, so you can't hold the Evan Fields nonsense against him, unlike say James Toney.

As for steroid abuse, Mike Tyson in 1991 paid Razor Ruddock a huge wad of cash to NOT take a steroid test that Ruddock voluntarily took! Now that's very interesting.

--- Sorta like OJ used to say. Yeah, sure thing.

It's well known by 1991 Tyson was on lithium and other pyschiatric drugs with new trainers and a new style. He gets the Golota KO overturned to NC when he tests positive for marijuana. Probably one of the earliest users of prozac which comes on the market around the time of Givens and King. He certainly has the prozac look in the infamous Walters interview.

Have no idea what kind of steroid test nonsense your talking up since it makes no cent$. Tyson wouldn't have to pay anyone not to take a test that wasn't required and nobody was interested in.

Kind of like me paying you not to post nonsense. You know Don King would never pay for something like that and neither would I. Post all the amusing nonsense you wish.

Look, frankly you chaps don't have much in your court for Evan Field save 96/97 results. Fine, well lost in the plot Tyson loses to past it Evan Field, whooohoooo. Jeff Fenech whooped Nelson recently too which nobody made a big deal over.

Too bad Mr. Field wasn't up to scratch when Tyson wiped out the entire slate of considerable 80s heavyweight talent and legends like they were schoolboys instead of the mature bigger, stronger heavyweight fighters that they were, but, hey, life is funny that way sometimes.

[Ambling Alp]

I know that Evander Holyfield was far past his best when he beat Tyson.
Win/Losses records can be very decieving in boxing. A lot depends on who you are fighting and the stages of the fighters' careers.
Holyfield was in several tough fights while Tyson was jail.

Tyson wasn't "done" before the Holyfield fight. He was only 30 years and had taken relatively little punishment; certainly much less than Holyfield. Shortly before the Holyfield fight, Tyson beat an improved Frank Bruno easier than he then the first time.
If you love stats so much, consider that Tyson still only had one loss going into the first Holyfield fight.

--- Very nice stating the obvious. Reminds me of a schoolboy who can rap his ABCs but doesn't know how to read or write.

First off, there is no equivalency here. Evan Field was in tough fights from the gitgo as a mature fighter. Tyson never had a tough fight until Douglas, and a couple fights later with Ruddock. his 37th fight onwards. The reasons are obvious enough that I don't feel the need to state them.

Tyson did not beat Bruno easy either in the rematch. He took some huge whacks that he never used to take when training properly with a professional team, stunning him almost as bad as Buster did. He looked like a wild swinging club fighter because that is what he'd become. Say goodbye to the beautiful jab and combos, adios to the exquisite footwork, balance, body and head movement that allows him to slip inside the incoming and be in perfect position for the deadly counters. He's just a badly behaved clubfighter with freakish power now. What, you thought that 15 min of ring time with Peter The Mighty McNeely, Buster Freakin' Mathis, Bruno and Bruce Soft Spot Seldon is gonna prep him for a vicious 11 rd buttfest after 4 years of rust?

Tyson lost to Evan Field in his 47-48th fights. Where was Mr. Evan Field in his 47-48th fight? I'll tell you, he was being KTFO by a fatboy named Toney, and obliterated on the cards by Larry the Legend Donald. He already has 10 losses on his record in spite of starting an easy run as a fully mature man against LHs and cruisers in his first 16 fights, and he still ain't close to Tyson's 58 fight heavyweight career.

Nobody was making Evan Field a legend until he beats Tyson, and he was considered as shot then as he is now, yet nobody questions these fights? How a guy with a 20% KO ratio from Foreman onwards notches a TKO against Tyson? You ever bothered to compile a list of Evan Field's KO victims from Foreman onward? Cooper, Czyz, Tyson, Moorer, Bates, Maddalone.

Yet you're telling me that those fighters were in the class of the 90% Tyson phantasm you made up? The only fighter close in class is Moorer, another fighter who couldn't be bothered with training properly, but at least he had talent and pedigree. What, 80% of Evan Field KOed 90% of Moorer, ain't that how you'd put it? Wow!

Evan Field, 6 KOs in 18 yrs, think about it, and think about how Ibro lists Tyson above Evan Field in it's rankings. From the way you chaps sound, Tyson wouldn't even make your list of top 100 heavies your arguments are so childish.

Like I stated previous, have no problem with anyone ranking Evan Field over Tyson. It's revionist logic with phantasmagorical numbers I have a problem with. If Evan was better, he'd have a better record. He doesn't, but he does have 96/97 wins over Mike, that's it. Beating Ali didn't suddenly propel Leon over Ali in the rankings any more than Donald is propelled over Evan Field.

Wow. Where to start.
Yes Tyson had 46 fights and Holyfield only 35 when they first fought. However, Holyfield had a lot more wear and tear. Holyfield took more punishment in a few rounds with Bowe than Tyson did in his 21 first round ko's combined. (14 against complete journeyman)
Love stats? Tyson had only 165 rounds going into the Holyfield fight, while Holyfield had 235 career rounds. not mention 3 fights with bowe, the Dokes fight, the Foreman fight, Mercer fight, etc. Holyfield obviously had much more wear and tear, was four years older. He was clearly further from his best than Tyson.

If Holyfield was better, he would have a better record? Are you serious? You rerally just go by win/loss record?
I guess you must think that Brian Nielson was better than Tyson ?Since after all he he had a better record (64-2). Never mind that Nielson lost to Tyson and that Nielson competition was a joke.

You have to look at competition and the stages of their careers when fighters fought. Holyfield only had 3 losses when he was close to his best. 2 were to Bowe, whom he beat once and one was to Moorer who he also beat.

Besides head to head, there are other reason that indicate Holyfield was better.
Holyfield beat Douglas; Tyson lost to Douglas.
Tyson never beat anyone that Holyfield lost to.
Who did Tyson ever beat that Holyfield probably would have lost to?
Trevor Berbick, Razor Ruddock?
Tyson was a great fighter; Holyfield was just better.

[observer1]

You guys cn rgue nd compre all you wat.

Fact of the matter is, mjority of fans hold the Tyson and Holyfield bout in the same level as the Lewis and Tyson bout.

Lewis and Holyfield both have wins against Tyson, but not a Prime Tyson.

We will never know what would have happened. Had the fight taken place in 88, imo, Tyson would have taken it easily.

Had Tyson's career progressed like a Normal boxer's would have, he would have probably met Bowe and Foreman in the early 90's. but it was not the case. Tyson was a train-wreck waiting to happen the say Don King and Robin took over.

The fact he even became champion after prison baffles me sometimes. Tyson is just an example as to what happens to an Atheletes career the day he stops training, messing with drugs and women, and getting cronies to be their boss/father figure.

[dempseyfire]

I know that Evander Holyfield was far past his best when he beat Tyson.
Win/Losses records can be very decieving in boxing. A lot depends on who you are fighting and the stages of the fighters' careers.
Holyfield was in several tough fights while Tyson was jail.

Tyson wasn't "done" before the Holyfield fight. He was only 30 years and had taken relatively little punishment; certainly much less than Holyfield. Shortly before the Holyfield fight, Tyson beat an improved Frank Bruno easier than he then the first time.
If you love stats so much, consider that Tyson still only had one loss going into the first Holyfield fight.

--- Very nice stating the obvious. Reminds me of a schoolboy who can rap his ABCs but doesn't know how to read or write.

First off, there is no equivalency here. Evan Field was in tough fights from the gitgo as a mature fighter. Tyson never had a tough fight until Douglas, and a couple fights later with Ruddock. his 37th fight onwards. The reasons are obvious enough that I don't feel the need to state them.

Tyson did not beat Bruno easy either in the rematch. He took some huge whacks that he never used to take when training properly with a professional team, stunning him almost as bad as Buster did. He looked like a wild swinging club fighter because that is what he'd become. Say goodbye to the beautiful jab and combos, adios to the exquisite footwork, balance, body and head movement that allows him to slip inside the incoming and be in perfect position for the deadly counters. He's just a badly behaved clubfighter with freakish power now. What, you thought that 15 min of ring time with Peter The Mighty McNeely, Buster Freakin' Mathis, Bruno and Bruce Soft Spot Seldon is gonna prep him for a vicious 11 rd buttfest after 4 years of rust?

Tyson lost to Evan Field in his 47-48th fights. Where was Mr. Evan Field in his 47-48th fight? I'll tell you, he was being KTFO by a fatboy named Toney, and obliterated on the cards by Larry the Legend Donald. He already has 10 losses on his record in spite of starting an easy run as a fully mature man against LHs and cruisers in his first 16 fights, and he still ain't close to Tyson's 58 fight heavyweight career.

Nobody was making Evan Field a legend until he beats Tyson, and he was considered as shot then as he is now, yet nobody questions these fights? How a guy with a 20% KO ratio from Foreman onwards notches a TKO against Tyson? You ever bothered to compile a list of Evan Field's KO victims from Foreman onward? Cooper, Czyz, Tyson, Moorer, Bates, Maddalone.

Yet you're telling me that those fighters were in the class of the 90% Tyson phantasm you made up? The only fighter close in class is Moorer, another fighter who couldn't be bothered with training properly, but at least he had talent and pedigree. What, 80% of Evan Field KOed 90% of Moorer, ain't that how you'd put it? Wow!

Evan Field, 6 KOs in 18 yrs, think about it, and think about how Ibro lists Tyson above Evan Field in it's rankings. From the way you chaps sound, Tyson wouldn't even make your list of top 100 heavies your arguments are so childish.

Like I stated previous, have no problem with anyone ranking Evan Field over Tyson. It's revionist logic with phantasmagorical numbers I have a problem with. If Evan was better, he'd have a better record. He doesn't, but he does have 96/97 wins over Mike, that's it. Beating Ali didn't suddenly propel Leon over Ali in the rankings any more than Donald is propelled over Evan Field.

Wow. Where to start.
Yes Tyson had 46 fights and Holyfield only 35 when they first fought. However, Holyfield had a lot more wear and tear. Holyfield took more punishment in a few rounds with Bowe than Tyson did in his 21 first round ko's combined. (14 against complete journeyman)
Love stats? Tyson had only 165 rounds going into the Holyfield fight, while Holyfield had 235 career rounds. not mention 3 fights with bowe, the Dokes fight, the Foreman fight, Mercer fight, etc. Holyfield obviously had much more wear and tear, was four years older. He was clearly further from his best than Tyson.

If Holyfield was better, he would have a better record? Are you serious? You rerally just go by win/loss record?
I guess you must think that Brian Nielson was better than Tyson ?Since after all he he had a better record (64-2). Never mind that Nielson lost to Tyson and that Nielson competition was a joke.

You have to look at competition and the stages of their careers when fighters fought. Holyfield only had 3 losses when he was close to his best. 2 were to Bowe, whom he beat once and one was to Moorer who he also beat.

Besides head to head, there are other reason that indicate Holyfield was better.
Holyfield beat Douglas; Tyson lost to Douglas.
Tyson never beat anyone that Holyfield lost to.
Who did Tyson ever beat that Holyfield probably would have lost to?
Trevor Berbick, Razor Ruddock?
Tyson was a great fighter; Holyfield was just better.

Broughton like his brother/other identity gran, is impervious to logic, so don't bother. The Bruno rematch wasn't an easy fight for Tyson???? The guy just flat-out lies and makes shit up to suit his crazy fantasies and his odd hate to the point of it being really creepy of certain fighters like Evander Holyfield and Ray Leonard.

[squiggy]

Did Bruno do anything but hold in his second fight with Tyson? If he did, I don't remember it.

[squiggy]

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.

Douglas fought a fantastic fight against Tyson; he would've given any heavyweight a struggle that night. But when he fought Holyfield, Douglas just looked like some couch potato with gloves on. Ali could have come out of retirement and beat him that night.