Should Tyson rate favourably over Holy at HW?

Always found this interesting when viewing fans and experts top HW lists, usually Tyson finds himself ranked favourably over Evander.

As a overall P4P we must rate Evander as a greater fighter than Mike, at HW it's difficult.

Holy has greater longevity, head to head wins over Mike and a greater signature win, in the wonderful recapture of his belts against Big Daddy Bowe. Add to the fact he dethroned a bloated for the want of a better word James Douglas, whom 8 months earlier dominated Tyson.

However Holy never had the consistency and dominance of Mike, one thing annoyed with Evander after usually a really terrific performance he never followed this up, the loss to Bowe and the one to Moorer comes more to mind.

(Bar Douglas )mutual opponents Tyson looked far more impressive against , Pinklon Thomas, Tilman, Alex Stewart and of course Tyson's demolition over Holmes.

So is it justified Tyson ranks favourably in most cases over Evander at HW, is the 4 years of dominance enough ?

Cheers and all the best for 2013

Rodders

I have Tyson top 12 and Holy around the same place.....Probably have Tyson higher.....

He cleaned up at heavy and was a more dominant champion!!

Holy's best win was Bowe but he lost the trilogy.....Douglas should have been a great win but as we know he quit again!!!.....Won the heavy crown thre times and a still decent Tyson was a quality win..

I think an unbeaten Biggs and an unbeaten Tucker and Holmes are the best wins for Tyson.....and of course Larry still had enough to beat Mercer and stretch Holy in his heavy pomp!!......

Holy's draw with Lewis deserved or not puts him close to Mike....and a Foreman win certainly puts him top 15.....

Just think Tyson's was the more dominant champ and with......Smith, Holmes, Tucker,Spinks, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs and Bruno probably has enough for the top 12 or even higher..

Time dulls the image of just how good and intimidating Mike was..

Certainly pick him against Holy pre-incarceration..

I see a continuation of the PEDS/ATG debate starting..

I would say yes Rodney, he had a period when he was without any shadow of doubt the best heavyweight in the world which Holyfield never really had. Holyfield was very up and down, looked impressive against Bowe and Tyson but looked lacklustre against Holmes, Foreman and Moorer.

Do you think he looked impressive against Bowe....Ghosty??

I think he owes the fan man a great deal of gratitude for giving him a rest in the 2nd fight..

Think he was starting to feel it.......

Think Bowe was too good for him..

I think he looked good in all three fights Truss to be honest, through sheer heart and determination he gave a better fighter as much as he could handle.

Pre prison Tyson is in my top 5 best HW boxer ever. Certainly better than Holy or even Evan Field. Cheers TMM

Ayup Rodney, hope the New Year is treating you well so far.

To me, the 2-0 head to head record in Holyfield's favour is the only real stumbling block here. It's justified, I suppose, to put Evander higher on that basis, but to me that version of Tyson in 1996 / 1997 was just too far removed from the young, devastating version to really give Holyfield the huge benefit of the doubt.

Outside of that, Tyson is well ahead in most of the vital areas; a prolonged period of dominance, a skill set better equipped to toppling the Heavyweight greats of previous / subsequent Heavyweight eras and beat a similar level of opposition. From the outset, Bowe is a better win than anything Tyson has, but Riddick was already giving away his chance of greatness to KFC by the time of their second fight, and I've never been convinced that Holyfield deserved the decision in any case (not to mention the fact that Bowe by late stoppage was looking a good call before fan man intervened!).

Tyson was a dominant Heavyweight champion whereas Holyfield never was, and I don't think that Holyfield's list of opposition / victims is better than Tyson's by a significant enough margin to overturn Mike's advantage there.

Tyson something like the #8 Heavyweight of all time for me, Evander something like #13.

Think the left hook in the third fight took Bowe's legs...

Never the same fighter after that..

Two dominant wins for Bowe and one contentious decision...

However I'll agree what a heart the guy had...

A great Heavy pity he didn't fight anybody decent like Wlad or Vit have!!

Holyfield was pure heart, it was never really his talent that shone through but it was always his heart.

Had a great triple jab....that broke hearts.....He was a skilled fighter...

But like Khan..you hurt him he and he forgets to box!!

He also defied logic and recovered from a heart defect....much like Lance recovered from cancer to win again. How did they do that?

Az please don't derail yet another thread, let the three of us carry on having some fun at the expense of Victor and try debating this one sensibly.

Tyson for me also. Although 'Iron' Mike regained a title after his prison stretch, we all know he was finished. Also have to ignore the shadow of a man that continued to taint his legacy by fighting well in to his 40s.

Both men were of similar size although Evander was the taller man so had even less disadvantages than Mike had to deal with but in all reality Tyson was one of the most dominant heavyweight champs ever. Great speed, life threatening power in both hands, decent chin and underrated skills. The only knock you could have against Mike, where Holyfield would come out on top is in the heart department as we all know Tyson was a front runner type of fighter and never won a fight from a losing position.

However, not enough to rate him above Mike. Tyson top 10, maybe top 5 where as Evander top 15

I'd never have Tyson in my top ten,nor would I have Holyfield there either,he had quite a few indifferent performances Bert Cooper Bobby Czyz Ruiz and Chris Byrd all of who weren't top level fighters but either beat or gave him a bit of trouble. I'd still have him higher than Tyson in my list of Heavyweights.

rapidringsroad wrote: I'd never have Tyson in my top ten,nor would I have Holyfield there either,he had quite a few indifferent performances Bert Cooper Bobby Czyz Ruiz and Chris Byrd all of who weren't top level fighters but either beat or gave him a bit of trouble. I'd still have him higher than Tyson in my list of Heavyweights.

I would have Holy higher in my list too. I think the two wins over Tyson the draw against Lewis and the wins over Bowe and foreman are far greater than anything Tyson ever did.

i do think tyson gets a easier ride than some for being past his best for no other fault than his own, he was 30 at the time of the first fight between the two and holyfield himself was coming out of retirement and a massive under dog, certainly shouldnt dismiss this victory just because tyson wasnt at his best because neither was holyfield, i have them somewhere similar in my list just outside the top ten, tyson for his dominance in his earlier reign and holy for longevity, coming through the weights and his better head to head record

Yes his decline was much of his own making but his decline was not in comparison to his age. Tyson was on the downside way before he lost to Evander. No longer training, domestic problems including the infamous car crash as well as the brawl with Mitch Green that resulted in him breaking his hand and this was all by the age of 24.

When he lost to Buster Douglas, it was was a culmination of the above and an exceptional one off performance from Douglas that made that outcome possible. Add 3 years in jail and then what skills he had left were all but gone. Yes regain the tittle but that was done to clever match making and and very limited champions but he stayed clear at the time of Bowe and Lewis.

Holyfield did great things as a fighter but to rank his achievements at heavyweight over Tyson don't add up. Yes he beat Mike but lets be honest, that was no more Mike Tyson than the version Lewis beat. No sure how you can call the wins over Bowe and Foreman as great wins as he struggled against a man who was far too old to be competitive and George only gets a mention because his only real win of note at the weight is over someone who beat a still credible Holyfield. As for the Bowe win, once again it was far from a clear win but it also has to be said he was losing that fight until he got a break with out side assistance against a man who was not in shape. If it was the same Bowe fro the first fight, I doubt if even the fan man would have saved Evander.

Plus add in common opponents like Thomas, Holmes, Stewart who were all crushed by Tyson but far from the case for Evander it just does not make sense to have Evander above Tyson at heavyweight

On a side note... Tyson is one of the most intelligent human beings I have ever had the pleasure to listen to.

Uneducated but what an insightful mind.

To be honest he was uneducated until he went to prison. I believed he completed his GED in there and the whole learning thing opened up his mind and like you say, very insightful.

mikeymax71 wrote:Yes his decline was much of his own making but his decline was not in comparison to his age. Tyson was on the downside way before he lost to Evander. No longer training, domestic problems including the infamous car crash as well as the brawl with Mitch Green that resulted in him breaking his hand and this was all by the age of 24.

When he lost to Buster Douglas, it was was a culmination of the above and an exceptional one off performance from Douglas that made that outcome possible. Add 3 years in jail and then what skills he had left were all but gone. Yes regain the tittle but that was done to clever match making and and very limited champions but he stayed clear at the time of Bowe and Lewis.

Holyfield did great things as a fighter but to rank his achievements at heavyweight over Tyson don't add up. Yes he beat Mike but lets be honest, that was no more Mike Tyson than the version Lewis beat. No sure how you can call the wins over Bowe and Foreman as great wins as he struggled against a man who was far too old to be competitive and George only gets a mention because his only real win of note at the weight is over someone who beat a still credible Holyfield. As for the Bowe win, once again it was far from a clear win but it also has to be said he was losing that fight until he got a break with out side assistance against a man who was not in shape. If it was the same Bowe fro the first fight, I doubt if even the fan man would have saved Evander.

Plus add in common opponents like Thomas, Holmes, Stewart who were all crushed by Tyson but far from the case for Evander it just does not make sense to have Evander above Tyson at heavyweight

You have criticsed Holyfield's wins but Tyson's are not any better. His best win is against a 38 year old larry holmes who was retired for 2 years was coming off 2 straight defeats and said his only motive for fighting tyson was money.

If you compare tyson and holyfields record then it is easy to see holyfield has the better victories.tyson had not lost a fight after douglas when he faced holy so to say he was past it is not true. Only 1 fight before holy he destroyed Bruno who was a decent HW. After the holy fight Tyson 'won' every fight until he met Lewis. Tyson was by no means past it when he faced Holy. He looked average against Holy just like he looked average against douglas because tysons opponent was simply better that night.

Lets not forget that tyson was the massive favourite going into the Holy fight and the fight was the 'upset of the year' because Holy won.

Tyson was past his best his best against Holyfield in my view. He had just fought a collection of guys that were practically waiting to fall down against him prior to Holyfield. Easy enough to say with hindsight admittadly but it was no preparation for a rejuvinated Holyfield and led to a false sense of security.

Holyfield could have been Tyson at any stage but the post prison Tyson was past his best considerably I think.

victorgarco wrote:Tyson was by no means past it when he faced Holy. He looked average against Holy just like he looked average against douglas because tysons opponent was simply better that night.

Lets not forget that tyson was the massive favourite going into the Holy fight and the fight was the 'upset of the year' because Holy won.

I see your point, Victor, and Tyson was definitely not the shell when he boxed Holyfield which he was when he eventually met Lennox.

But I'd liken this to the first Ali-Liston fight, or the first bout between Foreman and Frazier. Both of them were also considered massive upsets at the time but, in the years which followed, it becomes easier and easier to appreciate that they really shouldn't have been a major shock at all.

I don't think anyone anticipated that Tyson had regressed so much in that three year spell away from the sport. The Bruno fight and the Seldon debacle papered over the cracks, as a Tyson running at even a mere fifty percent of his full potential would still always steamroll them given that neither seemed that keen on fighting, and likewise I don't think that anyone knew that Holyfield still had so much to offer. He'd been stopped by Bowe and looked poor against Czyz in his fights just before facing Tyson, but in his few fights immediately afterwards he was handing out a spanking to Moorer and putting up a very valiant effort against a peak Lewis.

To be honest, sometimes you need to let go of facts and just trust your eyes, and anyone with a working pair of peepers can see that the Tyson who fought Holyfield, while still a live fighter, was certainly half a step or so slower than his eighties incarnation, had zero head movement by his own standards and had no jab to speak of either - no attacks were being set up properly by 1996. Instead, he was looking to unload with big one punch attacks, over and over.

Granted, Holyfield showed immense mental fortitude and he was hardly a young pup himself, but that wasn't a Tyson near his best that he beat, excellent victory though it remains. Since his three year stretch inside, Tyson had only boxed eight rounds (not all completed) against journeymen or 'champions' who were happy to collect their pay cheque and fall over. He'd not been pushed since the Ruddock fight half a decade earlier.

Eight sub-par rounds in five years is no preparation for Holyfield, even if it's a faded version.

I think Holy beats him in any case but yes that version was past it. Holyfields got all the ingredients. Tough as nail, brilliant stamina and excellent Jab/s and quite profiecient with Hooks and uppercuts. His problem is that he just goes to war every time and that might prove his undoing. That said he wins majority of the fights for me - theres something indomitable about him that would sap Tysons morale like nothing else.

manos de piedra wrote:Tyson was past his best his best against Holyfield in my view. He had just fought a collection of guys that were practically waiting to fall down against him prior to Holyfield. Easy enough to say with hindsight admittadly but it was no preparation for a rejuvinated Holyfield and led to a false sense of security.

Holyfield could have been Tyson at any stage but the post prison Tyson was past his best considerably I think.

post prison he defeated Bruno in 3 pre prison it took him 5. He won 4 fights with ease after prison winning the wbc belt off bruno and a unification fight for the wba after that. I just think holyfield outclassed him which made tyson look average. Too many people say he was past it after he lost to douglas or after he left prison but he won every fight with ease before holy and after holy (up until Lewis). I just think Holy was far better than him and made him look past it.

I dunno about that Victor - You have to remember how far he shone then compare that version to the one that fought Holy - there was a deterioration particular in his speed and aggression. We didnt see it at the time because he totalled those opponents but he was loading up his punches then throwing them - something that better fighters can avoid or mitigate by rolling, slipping, countering etc. On paper Holyfield is far superior - in actuality I dont think theres such a vasta difference.

88Chris05 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Tyson was by no means past it when he faced Holy. He looked average against Holy just like he looked average against douglas because tysons opponent was simply better that night.

Lets not forget that tyson was the massive favourite going into the Holy fight and the fight was the 'upset of the year' because Holy won.

I see your point, Victor, and Tyson was definitely not the shell when he boxed Holyfield which he was when he eventually met Lennox.

But I'd liken this to the first Ali-Liston fight, or the first bout between Foreman and Frazier. Both of them were also considered massive upsets at the time but, in the years which followed, it becomes easier and easier to appreciate that they really shouldn't have been a major shock at all.

I don't think anyone anticipated that Tyson had regressed so much in that three year spell away from the sport. The Bruno fight and the Seldon debacle papered over the cracks, as a Tyson running at even a mere fifty percent of his full potential would still always steamroll them given that neither seemed that keen on fighting, and likewise I don't think that anyone knew that Holyfield still had so much to offer. He'd been stopped by Bowe and looked poor against Czyz in his fights just before facing Tyson, but in his few fights immediately afterwards he was handing out a spanking to Moorer and putting up a very valiant effort against a peak Lewis.

To be honest, sometimes you need to let go of facts and just trust your eyes, and anyone with a working pair of peepers can see that the Tyson who fought Holyfield, while still a live fighter, was certainly half a step or so slower than his eighties incarnation, had zero head movement by his own standards and had no jab to speak of either - no attacks were being set up properly by 1996. Instead, he was looking to unload with big one punch attacks, over and over.

Granted, Holyfield showed immense mental fortitude and he was hardly a young pup himself, but that wasn't a Tyson near his best that he beat, excellent victory though it remains. Since his three year stretch inside, Tyson had only boxed eight rounds (not all completed) against journeymen or 'champions' who were happy to collect their pay cheque and fall over. He'd not been pushed since the Ruddock fight half a decade earlier.

Eight sub-par rounds in five years is no preparation for Holyfield, even if it's a faded version.

Yeh you are probably right that tyson had regressed by looking at his movement etc. But was that only noticebale in the holy fight?

I think if you put Tyson and holy's record against each other Holy's wins every time. Holy has some great victories and a draw against a peak Lewis to his name. Tyson has some decent victories but no where near as good as Holy's.

But he fought guys who literally put up no resistance to him and were scared stiff of him. Its visibly obvious that he was not as good a fighter. Less movement, less combinations, less work to the body, less head movement. He just fought a bunch a guys that were designed to make him look good and were terrified of him. Seldom dived, McNeely was useless and didnt want to be there and Bruno thought he was going die.

I think there is a real argument that Holyfield could potentially beat any version of Tyson but the version of him post prison just wasnt as good as when he was in the eighties.

victorgarco wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

victorgarco wrote:Tyson was by no means past it when he faced Holy. He looked average against Holy just like he looked average against douglas because tysons opponent was simply better that night.

Lets not forget that tyson was the massive favourite going into the Holy fight and the fight was the 'upset of the year' because Holy won.

I see your point, Victor, and Tyson was definitely not the shell when he boxed Holyfield which he was when he eventually met Lennox.

But I'd liken this to the first Ali-Liston fight, or the first bout between Foreman and Frazier. Both of them were also considered massive upsets at the time but, in the years which followed, it becomes easier and easier to appreciate that they really shouldn't have been a major shock at all.

I don't think anyone anticipated that Tyson had regressed so much in that three year spell away from the sport. The Bruno fight and the Seldon debacle papered over the cracks, as a Tyson running at even a mere fifty percent of his full potential would still always steamroll them given that neither seemed that keen on fighting, and likewise I don't think that anyone knew that Holyfield still had so much to offer. He'd been stopped by Bowe and looked poor against Czyz in his fights just before facing Tyson, but in his few fights immediately afterwards he was handing out a spanking to Moorer and putting up a very valiant effort against a peak Lewis.

To be honest, sometimes you need to let go of facts and just trust your eyes, and anyone with a working pair of peepers can see that the Tyson who fought Holyfield, while still a live fighter, was certainly half a step or so slower than his eighties incarnation, had zero head movement by his own standards and had no jab to speak of either - no attacks were being set up properly by 1996. Instead, he was looking to unload with big one punch attacks, over and over.

Granted, Holyfield showed immense mental fortitude and he was hardly a young pup himself, but that wasn't a Tyson near his best that he beat, excellent victory though it remains. Since his three year stretch inside, Tyson had only boxed eight rounds (not all completed) against journeymen or 'champions' who were happy to collect their pay cheque and fall over. He'd not been pushed since the Ruddock fight half a decade earlier.

Eight sub-par rounds in five years is no preparation for Holyfield, even if it's a faded version.

Yeh you are probably right that tyson had regressed by looking at his movement etc. But was that only noticebale in the holy fight?

I think if you put Tyson and holy's record against each other Holy's wins every time. Holy has some great victories and a draw against a peak Lewis to his name. Tyson has some decent victories but no where near as good as Holy's.

Sometimes you don't see it until it happens. Check these two fights out - Bernard Hopkins vs Kelly Pavlik and Mosely vs Margarito. Everyone had the latter battering the hell out of the former with respects to those fights and what actually happened was they made their Pavlik and Margarito look silly because against the best fighters they struggled (Calzaghe and Cotto) and everything they did didn't look good - once they were put in with people a little lower down they dominated them. Tyson was the other way around - he looked awesome against the lesser fighters but you put him in with a top level operator and you see how far he'd fallen.

I rate Holyfield higher beat better men and even came out of defeats with real credit. Tyson only really beat nobodies, washed up fighters and one great light heavy, he also lacked the real stomach for a battle on more than one occasion when the going got tough and fighters actually hit him back.

I would rate Tyson higher. In my ATG lists, Tyson usually comes in at 8-10 whereas I'd have Holyfield about 12. While Vander,s wins over Tyson naturally have to count quite a bit, as others have said, it wasn't the same version of Tyson as had been so dominant in the 80's. There was no head movement, he came walking in straight lines, no body punching (which I think Holyfield was always very susceptible to) and no combinations. Tyson went from a lightning fast swarmed/puncher to a crude slugger.

Also, with all due respect, using the second Bruno fight as a barometer to say Tyson still had it, it is the same people who useful first Bruno fight to say he fought nobodys during his first reign. You can't have it both ways.

Holyfield on the other hand was a fine fighter, but as good as some of his wins are, and some are excellent, he never dominated lime Tyson, and for every Bowe II there was a Moorer or a Ruiz. Also, you have the Evan fields thing, which IMO cannot be dismissed.

For my money, the Tyson at his best, especiLly the early version which threw vicious shots to the body would stop holfyfield, albeit probably on his
feet.

Tyson beat the unbeaten Olympic champion Biggs, the unbeaten Tucker and Smith who gave Holmes nightmares...

Disagree a 38 year old ws his best win...after all he sparked out the guy who beaten Holmes twice....

I'll say it again...the guys that denigrate Mike weren't around at the time he fought and haven't seen the intimidatory presence he had....

People just didn't get in there and fight normally..They were scared stiff!!

i dont think many can argue that tyson was at his best against holy, but surely credit has to be given to the older holy for being in better shape mentally and physically and still motivated unlike tyson, whichever excuse you use to whos fault mikes downfall was it has to go against him just like it does for the naz's etc. you cant simply ignore what a shell he became because mental toughness is just as if not more important aspect to a boxer than a thundering hook or cast iron chin, absolute massive talent but didnt do half he should have with it, where as holy probably acheived all he could do

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Tyson beat the unbeaten Olympic champion Biggs, the unbeaten Tucker and Smith who gave Holmes nightmares...

Disagree a 38 year old ws his best win...after all he sparked out the guy who beaten Holmes twice....

I'll say it again...the guys that denigrate Mike weren't around at the time he fought and haven't seen the intimidatory presence he had....

People just didn't get in there and fight normally..They were scared stiff!!

Is that the best 3 people you can name? Biggs, tucker and smith? Hardly great names now are they?

Oh dear...someone is looking for a bite !!

Go and have a cheeseburger Sonny.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Go and have a cheeseburger Sonny.............

You're the American so I will leave the cheeseburgers for you.

Mighty white of you.....

Biggs was an unbeaten Olympic champion...Tucker was the 2nd favorite for the Moscow Olympics before we boycotted unbeaten also...Smith beat Bruno and Witherspoon and gave Holmes trouble....

Just so you learn something today.....

Sonny.............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Mighty white of you.....

Biggs was an unbeaten Olympic champion...Tucker was the 2nd favorite for the Moscow Olympics before we boycotted unbeaten also...Smith beat Bruno and Witherspoon and gave Holmes trouble....

Just so you learn something today.....

Sonny.............

Being successful as an amatuer does not mean you will be successful as a pro.

biggs was only in his 13th fight when he fought Tyson so hardly an experienced pro now was he Also it was Tyson's 32nd fight when he fought Biggs so Tyson was a lot more experienced.. Biggs also lost to every other Tom Dick and Harry that he fought.

.

But Tyson only fought chumps you said.....what kind of experience can you gain from fighting them....???

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:But Tyson only fought chumps you said.....what kind of experience can you gain from fighting them....???

I have no clue what your reply is asking. I clearly labelled biggs as not very good. Tyson was approaching 35 fights and beat a guy who had just fought 13 guys. Are you going to label that as a great victory for Tyson? scraping the bottom of the barrel if you are.

He fought Snipes, Sims and Bey all good quality journeymen.....

As I recall Tyson fought Tillis and Green all in the same category before destroying Berbick....

So yes I am calling it good...

You have no idea who Tyrell Biggs is..............

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:He fought Snipes, Sims and Bey all good quality journeymen.....

As I recall Tyson fought Tillis and Green all in the same category before destroying Berbick....

So yes I am calling it good...

You have no idea who Tyrell Biggs is..............

You are just naming opponents now. He fought nobody.

And Biggs lost to every decent person he faced. Not to mention he was only 13 fights into his career when he fought tyson. Tyson was 32 fights into his career.

Yes I am please forgive me....I feel intellectually challenged by you..

There was me thinking two out of the three were former world title challengers, silly me Victor knows all.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:There was me thinking two out of the three were former world title challengers, silly me Victor knows all.

world title challengers lol. If that is the bar for being a good HW that means loads of Wlad's opponents are good because he has beaten world title challengers.

You've got nothing to offer kid....Just take a hike and see who you can annoy on the football threads..

Do you even know which two challenged for a world title?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:You've got nothing to offer kid....Just take a hike and see who you can annoy on the football threads..

you are the one coming out with nonsense saying that tyson who had 32 fights defeated a great fighter in biggs who had 13 fights to his name and subsequently lost to every other tom dick and harry.

Never said Biggs was great...........geez..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Never said Biggs was great...........geez..

So what was he? after 13 fights what would you rate him as? You mentioned his name when discussing the top opponents tyson has faced. So if the name of a guy who had only had 13 fights was mentioned surely that tells you that Tyson's victories were not against top notch opponents.