who wins? there was a dissagreement in another thread that i wanted to bring to attention. i beleive a prime mike tyson rips apart a prime evander holyfield. i dont know how it could go to holyfield, tyson was just unbeleivable...
so what do you guys think>? who would win here?
my money is for a 10 round ko of evander holyfield
Prime Holyfield VS Prime Mike Tyson
-
Rory McCloskey
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: 29 Jun 2005, 13:11
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
I have to go with Holyfield as well based on a convincing argument that Lou Duva made after there first bout. Duva said that some people were saying Holyfield was slipping and past his best and that Tyson would easily knock him out, but then added that he never had any doubts about Evander winning because, he's been totally obsessed with fighting Tyson for years, when he goes to bed every night he fights Tyson in his dreams. You're not going to beat a guy like that. Duva also mentioned how there's nothing more that motivates Holyfield than a guy who's a bully like Tyson. In the Olympic trials I believe it was Anthony Hembrick who had a reputation for trash talking, stare downs, telling guys what he was going to do to them in the ring. He made a big mistake when he did it with Evander though. The Real Deal tore into him with a vengeance and the bout was stopped in the 2nd rd I believe with Hembrick on the wrong end of a one sided beating.
-
BrocktonBlockbuster49
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 4900
- Joined: 29 May 2005, 00:32
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Funny how everyone was saying Tyson was back and better then ever after his destructions of Bruno and Seldon. He looks like the same Tyson in those bouts-attacks the body, combinations, moves his head, speed etc.
Of course Tyson was slightly past his best but not by much. Holyfield had been through hell and back in fight wars (collapsing vs Bowe in their 3rd fight, Qawi etc.) and was also fighting the effects of gruelling training regiments and let's be honest, probably lots of supplements that probably wern't legal, explaining his odd performance (with odd heart problems) vs Moorer and his subsequent injuries that plagued him until the present day.
Of course Tyson was slightly past his best but not by much. Holyfield had been through hell and back in fight wars (collapsing vs Bowe in their 3rd fight, Qawi etc.) and was also fighting the effects of gruelling training regiments and let's be honest, probably lots of supplements that probably wern't legal, explaining his odd performance (with odd heart problems) vs Moorer and his subsequent injuries that plagued him until the present day.
Given that an over the hill Tyson went 11rds with Evander first time out tells me that the more devestaing version of the late 80's does a lot better. I mean Tyson was so much more focused with Rooney in his corner. He was so much better in the speed and stamina departments, which is where Holyfield exposed him. I just think that Evander wouldn't be able to do enough damage to make Tyson really worried. At his peak Tyson was pretty amazing, he did show later on how he lacked temprement, but in the 80's with Rooney he had it all. I see Mike winning a comfortable decision......
This is just about the most infuriating topic that keeps coming back on these threads. 
I've got a lot of respect for the posters on this site but come on... Can we please put this myth to bed?
Holyfield would reach in and rip Tyson's heart out just like he ACTUALLY did twice. Holyfield mastered him so totally that Tyson quit in the second fight.
Holyfield was far more ring worn but Tyson had been out of the ring for a while. It could be argued though that Tyson was fresher. He fought very few rounds in most of his fights and had never really taken much punishment. Anyway, this is all academic...
Holyfield wins because he wasn't scared of Tyson, could always beat him on the inside and was simply a superior fighter.
I trot out the same aphorisms again and again about Tyson but if the same threads keep appearing then you can't blame me. Tyson never turned a losing fight into a win. He never won a fight in which he lost 2 rounds back to back. He always folded when faced with someone who put up resistance.
Tyson has a puncher's chance but no more than that.
I've got a lot of respect for the posters on this site but come on... Can we please put this myth to bed?
Holyfield would reach in and rip Tyson's heart out just like he ACTUALLY did twice. Holyfield mastered him so totally that Tyson quit in the second fight.
Holyfield was far more ring worn but Tyson had been out of the ring for a while. It could be argued though that Tyson was fresher. He fought very few rounds in most of his fights and had never really taken much punishment. Anyway, this is all academic...
Holyfield wins because he wasn't scared of Tyson, could always beat him on the inside and was simply a superior fighter.
I trot out the same aphorisms again and again about Tyson but if the same threads keep appearing then you can't blame me. Tyson never turned a losing fight into a win. He never won a fight in which he lost 2 rounds back to back. He always folded when faced with someone who put up resistance.
Tyson has a puncher's chance but no more than that.
Ezzard, I agree that Tyson was a quitter when the going got tough and that he lacked the discipline and heart, but I don't see a 1988 Tyson having to resort to his bully boy tactics against a peak Holyfield. I see Evander being a little too small to really make Tyson quit or get mad. Evander was by no means a midget heavyweight, but he wasn't near a Lewis or Foreman or Tucker or Bonecrusher. Tyson handled big guys well...It is very obvious that Mike was not half the fighter in the mid 90's that he was in the late 80's, that has to be a factor when considering this match
Why do Tyson fans keep bringing this up? Holyfield was older and had been in tougher fights than Tyson before they met. Evryone was saying Tyson was back to his best before the fight and now they say he wasn't. It can only be one or the other. Holyfield battered Tyson twice. Lets face it, a genuine cuiserweight, with a solid chin and fantastic boxing ability wiped the floor with Tyson twice. One final argument. A prime Tyson lost to Douglas who was then smashed by Holyfield inside three. Remember Douglas was much bigger than Holyfield has well. What I always remember about the Holyfield/Tyson fight was how relaxed Holy was. He was laughing getting into the ring. Tyson for the first time in his career looked subdued even scared! Holy wins this fight even if he was 40 and Tyson was 21!
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9007
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
prime for prime
Holyfield UDs, maybe even KOs Tyson. People forget what kind of chin Evender had, and what kind of punishment he could dish out. Remember, he's the only fighter to have knocked Bowe on his ass?
Holyfield always had stamina when he was prime. Yeah, Tyson went the distance a couple of times, but that was against "huggers". Holy wouldn't have been dancing with him.
Holyfield always had stamina when he was prime. Yeah, Tyson went the distance a couple of times, but that was against "huggers". Holy wouldn't have been dancing with him.
OK not going to jump in with a rash decision but:-
I've said it before we didn't see Tyson at his prime. Remember he was finished by the time he was 24yrs old.
Although during the build up to his first title fight he was awsome.
Not taking anything away from Evander, because I still believe he was the GREATEST Cruiserweight EVER.
As for them in their prime.
Like I said Mike never hit his prime it was taking away from him when Cus D'Amato died and he foolishly sacked the rest of his team.
Evander was in his prime as a Cruiserweight.
At that period in their respective careers Mike was too big and powerful for Evander and I believe he could have KO'd him pretty early.
HOWEVER, if Evander weathered the early onslaught and took Mike into the later rounds then I think The Real Deal could have stopped him.
Both guys were capable of knocking the other out even back in the late 80's however, Mike was more than capable of doing it earlier.
So I'm not going to make a rash decision on this as I think at their respective primes they both fought in different weight divisions. As a HEAVYWEIGHT Holyfield was past his best and a peak Tyson would have KO'd him.
But as a CRUISERWEIGHT Holyfield was the man.
Yes I know your all going to come on here and give it BS what do you know.
But in my honest opinion we NEVER saw Tyson at his best but what we did see prior to the Berbick fight Mike beats Holyfield as a heavyweight.
After Berbick there was no D'Amato, No Rooney and no strict training regime.
After Berbick, Holyfield takes Mike Tyson on any given night of the week.
Before that Holyfield has to weather that first 6 rounds, and very few could do that.
I've said it before we didn't see Tyson at his prime. Remember he was finished by the time he was 24yrs old.
Although during the build up to his first title fight he was awsome.
Not taking anything away from Evander, because I still believe he was the GREATEST Cruiserweight EVER.
As for them in their prime.
Like I said Mike never hit his prime it was taking away from him when Cus D'Amato died and he foolishly sacked the rest of his team.
Evander was in his prime as a Cruiserweight.
At that period in their respective careers Mike was too big and powerful for Evander and I believe he could have KO'd him pretty early.
HOWEVER, if Evander weathered the early onslaught and took Mike into the later rounds then I think The Real Deal could have stopped him.
Both guys were capable of knocking the other out even back in the late 80's however, Mike was more than capable of doing it earlier.
So I'm not going to make a rash decision on this as I think at their respective primes they both fought in different weight divisions. As a HEAVYWEIGHT Holyfield was past his best and a peak Tyson would have KO'd him.
But as a CRUISERWEIGHT Holyfield was the man.
Yes I know your all going to come on here and give it BS what do you know.
But in my honest opinion we NEVER saw Tyson at his best but what we did see prior to the Berbick fight Mike beats Holyfield as a heavyweight.
After Berbick there was no D'Amato, No Rooney and no strict training regime.
After Berbick, Holyfield takes Mike Tyson on any given night of the week.
Before that Holyfield has to weather that first 6 rounds, and very few could do that.
Great post Gordon, I'm fully with you that Tyson was finished the minute Rooney went. He was the real key during Mike's title reign, well the first few defenses....I don't think Mike deteriorated straight after Berbick though. He was better in my opinion right up until Bruno 1...that is where I first noticed a real decline.. I just don't see a peak Holy being powerful enough to really trouble that Tyson. That Tyson had bags of stamina, much better speed and great head movement.
Plus he had a great chin and no way Holy would have KO'd him wit a single shot...Plus Tyson was extremely hard to hit with 2-3 consecutive shots. So Tyson would at least go the distance, that I am convinced of....
He went 11 rds when he was past his sell by date. So how does Holyfield do it I ask. I see Mike being just as if not more busy, stronger, harder hitting, level on stamina and chin, more difficult to nail consecutively...what real edge would Evander have apart fro the fact that he had real teprement and character. This is what he exposed in 1996, would Tyson have folded with Rooney in his corner in the late 80's, could Evander have been so much for him that he would have had to fold...I say no.....
Plus he had a great chin and no way Holy would have KO'd him wit a single shot...Plus Tyson was extremely hard to hit with 2-3 consecutive shots. So Tyson would at least go the distance, that I am convinced of....
He went 11 rds when he was past his sell by date. So how does Holyfield do it I ask. I see Mike being just as if not more busy, stronger, harder hitting, level on stamina and chin, more difficult to nail consecutively...what real edge would Evander have apart fro the fact that he had real teprement and character. This is what he exposed in 1996, would Tyson have folded with Rooney in his corner in the late 80's, could Evander have been so much for him that he would have had to fold...I say no.....
Gordon
The problem with your argument is that it's based on a fantasy Mike Tyson that never existed.
By saying that we never saw his prime you can argue that his prime would have, or could have, been anything. It basically allows anyone to claim anything for Tyson that they wish.
BUT to whatever extent his physical and skill attributes might have developed in your scenario the only evidence is that Tyson did not have the mental strength to achieve these things. He was not strong enough to see that he needed certain people around him and not others. That was his choice. Just like it was his choice to quit against Holyfield in the second fight. The evidence is there that Tyson could not beat an evenly matched mentally strong opponent. The rest, however you wish to dress it up is wishful thinking...
So many people remember the blow outs and extraploate from there to some mythical peak Tyson. Thye never factor in how he would have dealt with someone intent on fighting back.
The problem with your argument is that it's based on a fantasy Mike Tyson that never existed.
By saying that we never saw his prime you can argue that his prime would have, or could have, been anything. It basically allows anyone to claim anything for Tyson that they wish.
BUT to whatever extent his physical and skill attributes might have developed in your scenario the only evidence is that Tyson did not have the mental strength to achieve these things. He was not strong enough to see that he needed certain people around him and not others. That was his choice. Just like it was his choice to quit against Holyfield in the second fight. The evidence is there that Tyson could not beat an evenly matched mentally strong opponent. The rest, however you wish to dress it up is wishful thinking...
So many people remember the blow outs and extraploate from there to some mythical peak Tyson. Thye never factor in how he would have dealt with someone intent on fighting back.
This is all true, but like I said we never saw a peak Tyson.
Or did he peak, no one will ever know. Would Tyson have become the ultimate fighting machine or just another good but not great champion.
As I stated earlier, Tyson was coming along just nicely, he had the potential of being the GREATEST EVER but he imploded at an early age so we never really saw what he was capable of. Or maybe what we saw was just that.
Either way after he became champion he did implode and never delivered the goods that he looked capable of doing.
From that period on he was NEVER going to beat Holyfield.
Or did he peak, no one will ever know. Would Tyson have become the ultimate fighting machine or just another good but not great champion.
As I stated earlier, Tyson was coming along just nicely, he had the potential of being the GREATEST EVER but he imploded at an early age so we never really saw what he was capable of. Or maybe what we saw was just that.
Either way after he became champion he did implode and never delivered the goods that he looked capable of doing.
From that period on he was NEVER going to beat Holyfield.
-
dempseyfire
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 5534
- Joined: 29 Oct 2003, 22:56
Gordon, one trainer does not a fighter make.Gordon wrote:This is all true, but like I said we never saw a peak Tyson.
Or did he peak, no one will ever know. Would Tyson have become the ultimate fighting machine or just another good but not great champion.
As I stated earlier, Tyson was coming along just nicely, he had the potential of being the GREATEST EVER but he imploded at an early age so we never really saw what he was capable of. Or maybe what we saw was just that.
Either way after he became champion he did implode and never delivered the goods that he looked capable of doing.
From that period on he was NEVER going to beat Holyfield.
And Rooney was in Mike's corner for almost 5 years after Cus died.
He certainly improved after the Berbick fight. Of course he didn't look as impressive vs Smith, Bruno, and Thomas as he did vs Michael Jack Johnson and whatever other joker Mike faced in his first year as a pro, b/c that's what happens when your quality of comp rises.
He got as good as he'd ever get. You could even see the little nuances and problems Tyson had with the likes of Tillis and Green and how they were exploited more by later opponents.
Tyson was never gonna be the greatest ever, b/c he never learned to neautralize the clinch with infighting or had the ability to switch the gameplan when things wern't going his way. The pressure A'mato peek a boo style can be very effective but relies on the fighter being ahead in the fight and overwhelming the other opponent with the pressure. If the opponent ends up not being overwhelmed and you start getting outboxed and tired, the last thing I'd want my fighter to be doing is plodding forward with both of his hands at his chin, getting himself more tired as he keeps coming forward and eating jabs.
Tyson could never fight going backwards or horizontally, and with guys who wern't overwhelmed and were good boxers, that was his undoing.
The thing is psychology is so much on boxing, maybe more than any other sport. Tyson imploded becasue of his weak psyche and this was a big part of him as a fighter, just like Ali or Marciano's will to win was a aprt fo who they were. I also agree with DempseyF that unlike an Ali or Holmes he was unable to adapt his gameplan. Mike was still a formidable opponent for anyone but he doesn't win this one.Gordon wrote:This is all true, but like I said we never saw a peak Tyson.
Or did he peak, no one will ever know. Would Tyson have become the ultimate fighting machine or just another good but not great champion.
As I stated earlier, Tyson was coming along just nicely, he had the potential of being the GREATEST EVER but he imploded at an early age so we never really saw what he was capable of. Or maybe what we saw was just that.
Either way after he became champion he did implode and never delivered the goods that he looked capable of doing.
From that period on he was NEVER going to beat Holyfield.
-
Syntax Error
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9007
- Joined: 22 Apr 2005, 08:00
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
The arguement that Tyson was past his prime when he fought Holyfield seems pretty weak when you consider that he was only 30 and that Holyfield was 34 and had been in more tough fights.
However, for the sake of arguement lets accept this arguement and just consider Tyson from 1986-1990. No question about it,Tyson did score dominating knockouts. However, he did struggle in fights, for example against Smith, Ferguson, and Tillis.
In Holyfield's heavyweight fights during this time period, he was 7-0 with 7 knockouts.
They fought 3 common opponents during this time period.
Against Tillis, Tyson went the distance and lost a few rounds in a reasonably competetive fight.
In Holyfield's first fight as a heavyweight, he stopped Tillis in 5 rounds.
Against Pinklon Thomas, Tyson won in 6 rounds, while Holyfield beat Thomas in 7 rounds in Thomas very next fight.
Against Buster Douglas, Tyson got knocked out. In Douglas next fight, he was knocked in three by Holyfield.
Sure you could argue that these opponents fought better against Tyson than Holyfield, but the point is that many people only look at Tyson and don't consider what Holyfield did during his peak.
Yes, Tyson has different trainers, but many fighters (including Holyfield) have gone through more than one trainer. It's a lame excuse.
Holyfield was a smarter fighter and a tougher fighter and would have beaten a "Prime Tyson".
However, for the sake of arguement lets accept this arguement and just consider Tyson from 1986-1990. No question about it,Tyson did score dominating knockouts. However, he did struggle in fights, for example against Smith, Ferguson, and Tillis.
In Holyfield's heavyweight fights during this time period, he was 7-0 with 7 knockouts.
They fought 3 common opponents during this time period.
Against Tillis, Tyson went the distance and lost a few rounds in a reasonably competetive fight.
In Holyfield's first fight as a heavyweight, he stopped Tillis in 5 rounds.
Against Pinklon Thomas, Tyson won in 6 rounds, while Holyfield beat Thomas in 7 rounds in Thomas very next fight.
Against Buster Douglas, Tyson got knocked out. In Douglas next fight, he was knocked in three by Holyfield.
Sure you could argue that these opponents fought better against Tyson than Holyfield, but the point is that many people only look at Tyson and don't consider what Holyfield did during his peak.
Yes, Tyson has different trainers, but many fighters (including Holyfield) have gone through more than one trainer. It's a lame excuse.
Holyfield was a smarter fighter and a tougher fighter and would have beaten a "Prime Tyson".