BoxRec

If I meet him, I will ask him for his honest opinion and not toeing the 'respectful' line 8)

Absolutely no one --- no one --- who gets hit as much as Holyfield did, & who was as poor as Holyfield often was at sticking to a fightplan, is a lock to beat a young Tyson. No way.

bengulnaci1 wrote:If I meet him, I will ask him for his honest opinion and not toeing the 'respectful' line 8)

He would tell you that Evander was his daddy.

King Carlos wrote:Prime Tyson would've destroyed Evander.

Not once out of 20 fights. He would be more competitive than he was in the slaughters when they were both past it. But he would never win.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

bengulnaci1 wrote:If I meet him, I will ask him for his honest opinion and not toeing the 'respectful' line 8)

He would tell you that Evander was his daddy.

I'll let you know what he says

I think Tyson says that because he feels guilty about biting the guy, so he feels that in order to make good for doing that he must big-up Holyfield whenever the question comes up.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think Tyson says that because he feels guilty about biting the guy, so he feels that in order to make good for doing that he must big-up Holyfield whenever the question comes up.

I think he says it because he knows he was a better fighter. The same exact reason why he bit him and why King ducked him.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think Tyson says that because he feels guilty about biting the guy, so he feels that in order to make good for doing that he must big-up Holyfield whenever the question comes up.

Agreed. Tyson's pretty much just saying what everyone wants to hear nowadays. He knows damn well he'd have absolutely murderised Holyfield's face at his best.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'm so sick of people acting as if Tyson never fought beyond 1991. His entire career between 95-05 is a disgusting waste of talent. No one ever holds that period against him.

true it was sad watching it

King Carlos wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think Tyson says that because he feels guilty about biting the guy, so he feels that in order to make good for doing that he must big-up Holyfield whenever the question comes up.

Agreed. Tyson's pretty much just saying what everyone wants to hear nowadays. He knows damn well he'd have absolutely murderised Holyfield's face at his best.

I believe Tyson is quite underrated on this board and Holyfield is definitely overrated as a heavyweight but no one ever murdered Holyfield in any fight and I doubt even a prime Tyson could do it. Holyfield always seemed quite beatable at heavyweight, he was often in tough fights and struggled with guys a prime Tyson would have steam rolled but Evander had some qualities that was necessary to give Tyson hell. He was not afraid, could take a good punch and he was actually stronger than Tyson and a much better inside fighter. A prime Tyson would hit Evander more than what was the case in their fight but wold it be enough to stop Holyfield? People also seem to forget that Holyfield himself was past his best when he fought Tyson. I think a prime vs prime fight would be more competitive that their actual fights but if Holyfield could get past 5 rounds I think he'd win.

Flump wrote: Fore me his best performances were Berbick, Thomas, Holmes and Spinks.

This. Minus the e in "Fore" and I'd replace Berbick by Ruddock.

He was nasty against Biggs.

Let's not forget that the 34 year old Holyfield was supposed to be the DONE fighter when he faced Tyson, coming off losses to Michael Moorer and Riddick Bowe. King and Tyson thought they had a mark. History proved otherwise.

I think his best wins were against Berbick and Thomas.

How good Tony Tucker was is too open to debate. The Spinks victory is the signature win but feels more like Dempsey’s win over Carpentier…

Jaywheel wrote:

Flump wrote: Fore me his best performances were Berbick, Thomas, Holmes and Spinks.

This. Minus the e in "Fore" and I'd replace Berbick by Ruddock.

Oh dear, let myself down there Jayweel. I wouldn't consider either of his performances against Ruddock with what was seen in the earlier fights, the head movement and combinations weren't quite there.

Flump wrote:One thing to add is that Tucker broke a hand early in the fight which certainly didn't help him.

It wasn't so much who he beat , it was the way he did it, at a time when the division was a bit in the doldrums, as someone said it's all about timing. Fore me his best performances were Berbick, Thomas, Holmes and Spinks. Only Berbick of the four had ever been stopped before, and that was pretty early in his career, Tyson just obliterated them.

I was thinking the same thing.

Also, why don't you include Bonecrusher Smith as one of Tyson's best opponents? Even though their bout was a stinker, I think he's right up there with Tucker and Thomas.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember at the time before Tyson & Holyfield's first proposed bout (before Tyson went to prison) almost nobody thought Holyfield could beat Tyson.

Flump wrote:

Jaywheel wrote:

Flump wrote: Fore me his best performances were Berbick, Thomas, Holmes and Spinks.

This. Minus the e in "Fore" and I'd replace Berbick by Ruddock.

Oh dear, let myself down there Jayweel. I wouldn't consider either of his performances against Ruddock with what was seen in the earlier fights, the head movement and combinations weren't quite there.

Perhaps, but I consider the Ruddock of both fights to be a bigger threat to any version of Mike than Berbick was when they fought. Take away the highlight reel part of the knockdowns where is Berbick stumbling and falling everywhere around the ring and it is just another annihilation of a lesser caliber opponent a la Marvis Frazier. Tyson actually went thru adversity in order to beat Ruddock.

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

King Carlos wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:I think Tyson says that because he feels guilty about biting the guy, so he feels that in order to make good for doing that he must big-up Holyfield whenever the question comes up.

Agreed. Tyson's pretty much just saying what everyone wants to hear nowadays. He knows damn well he'd have absolutely murderised Holyfield's face at his best.

How can you or ben say that with such certainty? Who did he face in that time that stands up to Holyfield?

Larry Holmes gave Holy some issues... Tyson gave the old bastard a street-level beat down.

ThatOne wrote:

Jaybird wrote:Bottom line...It's not Tyson's fault..He beat everyone there was at that time....Same for Marciano....Just came around at the right time, and in some case, the wrong time


Jay

But Tyson really didn't beat everybody in front of him. He lost to Douglas in what inarguably was his prime and lost to Holyfield in what arguably should have still been his prime.

Wrong. Tyson's prime was when he still prepared properly for fights. SOmething he didn't do for Bruno, Douglas and Williams.

Tyson after '91 was just not the same fighter. It's a bit like Ali after the ban.

In terms of who he beat.... I think it's more a question of how he beat them.

Holmes in 4. No one ever beat Larry like that, even Holyfield and McCall couldn't do that.

Spinks in 1. Unbeaten and went the distance with Holmes twice, but yet Tyson need 1 round.

Tubbs in 2, Berbick in 2, Willimas in 1. All superb results.

I'm was always a Holyfield fan and not Tyson, but credit where credit's due. Tyson in his prime was a fantasic fighter.

Take the blinkers off fellas, Tyson's record in his prime speaks for itself.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'm so sick of people acting as if Tyson never fought beyond 1991. His entire career between 95-05 is a disgusting waste of talent. No one ever holds that period against him.

Tyson remains THE only man to have scored a KO over Holmes. Some four years after facing Tyson. Holmes beat Ray Mercer & gave Holyfield all he could handle. If anything, Tyson doesn't get enough credit for being the only man to stop Holmes!

Spinks was expected to at least give Tyson a fair challenge, take him into the second half of the fight, etc. He got blown away! Regardless of whether he was intimidated or not - he got taken out. It is & isn't Tyson's fault if Spinks was Intimidated.

Tyson isn't the greatest HW ever. I would favour Louis, Ali, & a Prime Holmes & maybe a Peak Foreman to beat him. But, as Tyson once said when he was asked how he reckoned he'd favour against past Greats: "I'm not gonna say I'd have beat them all, because they are my Hero's, but make no mistake, no matter who's in front of me, they'd be in the fight of their life!"

Tony Tubbs wans't even mentioned? He was a good fighter on his day...

All fair points gents but you can’t draw a line pre-Douglas and say that’s Tyson’s prime and then try to build up Mike Spinks – a light-heavy with bad knees looking for a pension cheque…

Holmes went on to beat Mercer. Douglas was once KO’d by David Bey in 2 rounds.

Someone on this board once said “styles make fights”… Liston, Foreman and Tyson all looked unbeatable at points in their careers because their styles saw them blow out stubborn contenders who others had trouble with. But it turned out that they were all beatable.

Tyson went through the division like Dempsey and Louis before him. It was thrilling. He beat a lot of top contenders and the fights were rarely even close. But he did lose to opponents at a point in his career where he was too young to be past it.

Tyson did more than enough to be considered a great but not enough to be considered as one of the greatest.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

The Dark Destroyer wrote:

King Carlos wrote:Agreed. Tyson's pretty much just saying what everyone wants to hear nowadays. He knows damn well he'd have absolutely murderised Holyfield's face at his best.

How can you or ben say that with such certainty? Who did he face in that time that stands up to Holyfield?

Larry Holmes gave Holy some issues... Tyson gave the old bastard a street-level beat down.

Holyfield faced a Holmes that was actually prepared to fight after a slew of tuneups. It was a much better version. Ray Mercer would have hammered the Holmes that fought Tyson.

Crease wrote:Tony Tubbs wans't even mentioned? He was a good fighter on his day...

He was a fat tub of butter on that day. There are a couple guys on here that overrate Tony to shocking levels. But he would fit right in with today's Heavyweights. Under trained and uninspired.

C'mon Saad, Tubbs wasn't all that bad, a decorated amateur, shared the ring with Teofilo Stevenson, former World Champ, had fast hands, good chin and very good boxing skills.

Sure his conditioning left a lot to be desired. However this is a guy, who several years on hurt Bowe to the body and barely (some say unfairly) lost a tight decision to him. Bowe was streaking, at the time.

He can't have been all that bad, surely?

Today Tubbs, whilst, in my opinion, wouldn't beat either Wlad or Vitali, certainly had the speed and skills to pose them some problems, not to mention give people like Haye, Povetkin, Chambers, Arreola, Thompson etc a severe test, if not beat them.

To me, Chambers reminds me of him, to a degree, but a significantly poorer version.