Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

[Russell]

Just about every mutual opponent they had in one anothers prime, Tyson performed more impressively against.

Holmes TKO 4 as opposed to a UD for Holyfield.

Tillman KO 1 as opposed to Holyfield's TKO 7.

Tyson looked far more impressive against Pinklon Thomas then Holyfield. You could make a case that Tyson really softened Pinklon up as well.

Then again, theres the damning losses against Tyson around his career slide like Douglas, where as Holy destroyed Buster, albeit a disintered fat version.

Thoughts?

[janitor]

Absolutely.

Depending on your critiea.

[Silver]

Just about every mutual opponent they had in one anothers prime, Tyson performed more impressively against.

Holmes TKO 4 as opposed to a UD for Holyfield.

Tillman KO 1 as opposed to Holyfield's TKO 7.

Tyson looked far more impressive against Pinklon Thomas then Holyfield. You could make a case that Tyson really softened Pinklon up as well.

Then again, theres the damning losses against Tyson around his career slide like Douglas, where as Holy destroyed Buster, albeit a disintered fat version.

Thoughts?
nope, while holyfield was inconsistent, he fought better competition and did better when he fought them for the most part. not to mention he beat the hell out of tyson when they fought head to head.

tyson was looked more impressive in his prime, because he was more talented then holyfield especially when it came to power and speed and overall raw talent. but tyson's prime was only 3 or 4 years, what about the rest of the body of work. that all goes to holyfield.

[PetethePrince]

At Heavyweight, no doubt. But overall P4P ranking? Definitely harder to due, considering Holy's CW reign/run.

[mr. magoo]

Yes,

Just because a fighter lost a series to another, does not necessarily mean that he has to be ranked lower. For example, I rate Holyfield higher than Bowe on an all time list, regardless of the fact that he lost two out of three to him.. A similar case can be made when comparing Holyfield to Tyson. Now, I often go back and forth in terms of where I rate those two in relationship to one another, but a case can certainly be made for Tyson being rated higher.

[Russell]

Alright, what exactly could place Tyson above Holyfield?

Dominance at his peak? Better top wins?

[darthhutchence]

Prime for Prime Tyson is superior to any heavyweight, even the steroid assisted cruiserweight of Holyfield.

[darthhutchence]

Holyfield not only cheated in the ring ( headbutts that cut , dazed, and almost KO'd heavyweights)


but he also cheated outside of it (steroids).

[Bioyhh]

Holyfield not only cheated in the ring ( headbutts that cut , dazed, and almost KO'd heavyweights)


but he also cheated outside of it (steroids).

I see your point, but isn't the steroid use also cheating inside the ring?

[PetethePrince]

I see your point, but isn't the steroid use also cheating inside the ring?

Why would a fighter cheating outside the ring matter if it didn't affect what happened in the squared circle? How could it even be classified as cheating? Don't be so literal. :tong

[Ezzard]

If you're being objective: NO.

If you have a favourite then you can argue anything.

[bodhi]

Personally I rate Holyfield higher. Holyfield has a superior resume and longevity. The only thing Tyson has going for him is his dominance. Add to that that Holyfield beat Douglas who beat Tyson and Tyson himself and did better against Lewis than Tyson and I don't think you can justify ranking Tyson above Holyfield.
But you could argue that with Tyson's dominance and raw talent and Holyfield's inconsistency there is an argument. I can see it but I don't think it's strong enough to rank Tyson above Holy.

I rate Holyfield alongside Frazier, Foreman and Liston between 8 and 11 and Tyson alongside Dempsey, Wills and Langford between 12 and 15.

[Flea Man]

p4p; Evander

At heavy its what you like. Holyfields longevity gets it for me I have him above Marciano and Tyson in my HW rankings (last time I checked)

[Thread Stealer]

Yes, it can be justified.

Not that I necessarily agree, but I'm usually pretty open-minded about things like this and don't have a problem with it, as long as it argument is reasonable.

[junior-soprano]

sure it can. what is the criteria ? h2h or p4p. personally i believe that the tyson that fought mike spinks would have won from any version of holyfield.

[Boxed Ears]

At Heavyweight, no doubt. But overall P4P ranking? Definitely harder to due, considering Holy's CW reign/run.

I agree with that. Even though I wouldn't necessarily rank Tyson above Holy myself at HW, I would say I can understand how someone would, although p4p, I think Holy is obviously greater because of his prior achievements. Bronze medalist Olympian at LHW, undisputed and undefeated CW champion, then 4-time HW champion. The guy really railed against the odds. I'm sad to see him still around though, for hopefully obvious reasons.

[frankenfrank]

Holyfield not only cheated in the ring ( headbutts that cut , dazed, and almost KO'd heavyweights)

and tyson did not use elbows ?
and hopkins did not use both elbows and headbutts and pushing , clinching , throwing , whatever you like ?

but he also cheated outside of it (steroids).
who did not ? tyson ? sure , everyone at 5'10" can weigh a trim 217lbs .

[ironchamp]

Alright, what exactly could place Tyson above Holyfield?

Dominance at his peak? Better top wins?

Holyfield has a better signature win against Bowe which really trumps Tyson's top win at HW but when you look at Tyson's body of work, consistency and dominance (as in far removed from his peers) the edge goes to Tyson.

I personally rank Tyson ahead.

p4p a case for Holyfield can be made given his CW reign but in terms of strictly work he did at HW, the edge is Tyson.

[Hookie]

Just about every mutual opponent they had in one anothers prime, Tyson performed more impressively against.

Holmes TKO 4 as opposed to a UD for Holyfield.

Tillman KO 1 as opposed to Holyfield's TKO 7.

Tyson looked far more impressive against Pinklon Thomas then Holyfield. You could make a case that Tyson really softened Pinklon up as well.

Then again, theres the damning losses against Tyson around his career slide like Douglas, where as Holy destroyed Buster, albeit a disintered fat version.

Thoughts?

Here goes-

Tillman-

Holyfield KO7 in 1987... Holyfield dropped him 4 times. Tillman had beat Tyson twice in the amateurs a few years earlier and was much better vs. Holyfield than vs. Tyson

Tyson KO1 in 1990... Tyson crushed him

Tillis-

Holyfield KO5 in 1988... it was Holyfield's first fight at HW and 19th overall. Not a bad 1st fight at HW.

Tyson W10 in 1985... it was Tyson's 20th fight and 1st decision win.

Thomas-

Holyfield KO7 in 1988... Holyfield's 2nd fight at HW. Thomas had fought Tyson in his previous fight the year before. Not a bad 2nd fight at HW.

Tyson KO6 in 1987... a prime Tyson

Stewart-

Holyfield KO8 in 1989 and W12 in 1993... Holyfield dominated him in both

Tyson KO1 in 1990... Tyson crushed him

Douglas-

Holyfield KO3 in 1990... Douglas was way out of shape

Tyson LKOby10 in 1990... Tyson got his ass handed to him

Holmes-

Holyfield W12 in 1992... Holmes had won 6 fights in a row including a dominating performance vs. an undefeated Mercer.

Tyson KO4 in 1988... Holmes had not fought in 2 years or won a fight in 3. He thought little of Tyson and paid for it.

Lewis-

Holyfield D12 and L12 in 1999... most felt Lewis won the 1st fight but a lot of people felt that Holyfield won the rematch. A past prime Holyfiled vs. a prime Lewis in both of these fights.

Tyson LKOby8 in 2002... Tyson was well past his prime

Savarese-

Holyfield W10 in 2007... Holyfield (44 at the time) dropped him twice in a dominating performance

Tyson KO1 in 2000... Tyson crushed him

With that said... the common "wins" don't mean much to me.

Head to head Holyfield is 2-0 vs. Tyson. Both men were past prime when they fought, not just Tyson. Prime vs. Prime? I'd still take Holyfield.

I can't see putting Tyson above Holyfield.

Did Tyson punch harder? Sure, but that's not everything.

[salty trunks]

I dont think it can be justified. Tyson was an explosive knockout puncher. Holyfield was a smaller less powerful fighter of course the outcomes of their fights were going to be different.

Both great fighters, but who had less to fall back on? Who had to use more will, determination and savvy to win fights and ulitimately who accomplished more?

I believe Holyfield proved more against a higher caliber of fighter overall but both have impressive legacies in their own right.

[Frazier Hook]

Rating Tyson over Evander as a Heavyweight is reasonable I guess. But rating him above Holy in a pound for pound list is insane. Evander was the much more accomplished fighter aswell as beating him twice.

[Nay_Sayer]

Bronze medalist Olympian at LHW, undisputed and undefeated CW champion, then 4-time HW champion.
We need to stop giving credibility to the worthless santioning mobs and their equally worthless trinkets. Evander has only had two legitimate HW title reigns.

[Hookie]

We need to stop giving credibility to the worthless santioning mobs and their equally worthless trinkets. Evander has only had two legitimate HW title reigns.

I see where you are coming from but you can't ignore his 3rd reign as a HW titleist.

He beat Tyson for the WBA belt (who had also won the WBC belt but vacated it). He also beat Moorer for the IBF belt.

Sure, Lewis was proclaimed WBC champ and even "technically" picked up the honor as "Lineal" champ with his win over Briggs (because Briggs somehow got the decision over Foreman).

IMO, when Holyfield beat Moorer he was the #1 HW at that time (or he at least had more claim as the true HW champ) especially since it was 4 months before Lewis beat Briggs. It takes more than a win over (shouldn't have won vs. Foreman) Briggs to become #1.

Holyfield vs. Lewis I was no doubt for the HW World title.

[RUSKULL]

nope, while holyfield was inconsistent, he fought better competition and did better when he fought them for the most part. not to mention he beat the hell out of tyson when they fought head to head.

tyson was looked more impressive in his prime, because he was more talented then holyfield especially when it came to power and speed and overall raw talent. but tyson's prime was only 3 or 4 years, what about the rest of the body of work. that all goes to holyfield.

I agree 100%. I rank Holyfield higher based on their head to head matchups as well as Holy's longevity.

Tyson always has that "youngest HW champion ever" status and he was a more exciting, dominating fighter but his peak was too short & you can't rank according to "coulda, woulda, shoulda."

[Silver]

I agree 100%. I rank Holyfield higher based on their head to head matchups as well as Holy's longevity.

Tyson always has that "youngest HW champion ever" status and he was a more exciting, dominating fighter but his peak was too short & you can't rank according to "coulda, woulda, shoulda."
yep, tyson had everything to rank among the very best ever, up there with the ali, louis etc. but the he didnt have the discpline to sustain is greatness. that is the difference between tyson and holyfield. one guy underachieved the other one overachieved.

[Nay_Sayer]

I see where you are coming from but you can't ignore his 3rd reign as a HW titleist.

He beat Tyson for the WBA belt (who had also won the WBC belt but vacated it). He also beat Moorer for the IBF belt.

Sure, Lewis was proclaimed WBC champ and even "technically" picked up the honor as "Lineal" champ with his win over Briggs (because Briggs somehow got the decision over Foreman).
Moorer beat Holyfield
Foreman beat Moorer
Briggs beat Foreman
Lewis beat Briggs

In no way does Holyfield's victory over Tyson interupt the lineage of the title Lewis won from Briggs. That's all there is to it...

[janitor]

who did not ? tyson ? sure , everyone at 5'10" can weigh a trim 217lbs .

Sam McVea managed it before steroids existed.

[CF Gauss]

Moorer beat Holyfield
Foreman beat Moorer
Briggs beat Foreman
Lewis beat Briggs

In no way does Holyfield's victory over Tyson interupt the lineage of the title Lewis won from Briggs. That's all there is to it...


It is ridiculous to recognize Foreman as the legitimate HW champ when Briggs "beat" him in 1997.

Foreman hadn't fought any top contenders in the 3 years since he legitimately won the title. Winning the title doesn't give one an indefinite claim to champion. That's the whole point of title defenses. A champion is supposed to defend his title against top-notch opposition to reaffirm his place as champion.


The truth is that there was no universally recognized champ between the time Foreman made it clear he wasn't going to fight top opposition (and for all intents and purposes vacating his claim to HW champ) and Holyfield-Lewis I. But during that period, Holyfield had as strong a claim as anyone.

[guncho]

Thing is Lewis has beaten Tysons oponents far more easyer then Tyson!

[Jaws]

who did not ? tyson ? sure , everyone at 5'10" can weigh a trim 217lbs .

Plenty of athletes weigh that much at that height. Just look at the NFL.

And it doesn't take a genius to see why Tyson weighed what he weighed. He was 190 pounds as a homeless 12 year old. Almost 20 inch neck, butcher block back, and huge thighs.

Now, he may have used roids to help recover from prison, and his body did look somewhat different from his pre-prison days. I'll leave that up for debate. But for his initial professional run, his body looks very natural. He was known to not even lift weights at this point.

[MAG1965]

If you go by dominance, Tyson was greater.. If you go by head to head then Holyfield was. I would say Holyfield is greater.

[Silver]

Thing is Lewis has beaten Tysons oponents far more easyer then Tyson!
you cant say that about all of them. tyson crushed bruno twice while bruno gave lewis hell for 7rds

[Canibus81]

you cant say that about all of them. tyson crushed bruno twice while bruno gave lewis hell for 7rds


Lewis also fought most of Tyson former opponents like biggs and Tucker for instance when they were shot. We seen when Biggs and Lewis fought when they were young, Biggs outboxed him. Tyson fought all of those guys at the peak of their careers, Lewis and Holyfield didn't. Hell even Tyson fought a much better Holmes than Holyfield did.

[Bill Butcher]

Of course you can justify it... as you can vice versa.

I rank Tyson a good bit over Holyfield at HW, p4p is a lot closer.

[Bill Butcher]

If you go by dominance, Tyson was greater.. If you go by head to head then Holyfield was. I would say Holyfield is greater.

Paul Pender got the better of Ray Robinson but I know who Id bet on H2H.... timing is important in boxing (any sport actually)

[bodhi]

Lewis also fought most of Tyson former opponents like biggs and Tucker for instance when they were shot. We seen when Biggs and Lewis fought when they were young, Biggs outboxed him. Tyson fought all of those guys at the peak of their careers, Lewis and Holyfield didn't. Hell even Tyson fought a much better Holmes than Holyfield did.

Bullshit. The Holmes Holyfield fought was better than the one Tyson fought. He was back in his routine and didn't come off a long layoff and a short preperation time.
Also, neither Biggs nor Tucker were shot when Lewis fought them. Get your facts straight. :deal

[Canibus81]

[/b]

Bullshit. The Holmes Holyfield fought was better than the one Tyson fought. He was back in his routine and didn't come off a long layoff and a short preperation time.
Also, neither Biggs nor Tucker were shot when Lewis fought them. Get your facts straight. :deal


No, you need to get your facts staright. Tony Tucker was 15Ibs. heavier when he fought Lennox Lewis and he came off a 2 yr. retirement and he was coming off drugs. Tyrell Biggs was never the same after Tyson fought him, he was shot fighter and gun shy after that fight. Tyrell biggs and Tucker were shot to shit when Lewis got them.

And if you honestly think Larry Holmes was better for the Holyfield fight when he was 4yrs. older in HIS 40'S, AND 10 PDS. HEAVIER YOU MIGHT JUST BE HALF FUCKIN RETARDED.

[bodhi]

No, you need to get your facts staright. Tony Tucker was 15Ibs. heavier when he fought Lennox Lewis and he came off a 2 yr. retirement and he was coming off drugs. Tyrell Biggs was never the same after Tyson fought him, he was shot fighter and gun shy after that fight. Tyrell biggs and Tucker were shot to shit when Lewis got them.

And if you honestly think Larry Holmes was better for the Holyfield fight when he was 4yrs. older in HIS 40'S, AND 10 PDS. HEAVIER YOU MIGHT JUST BE HALF FUCKIN RETARDED.

Repeating wrongs does not make them right ;)

[zadfrak]

Well a huge factor in the Lewis/Tucker fight that doesn't get mentioned is a guy facing a Don King fighter in a WBC title bout. You can count on your thumbs the guys that came out of those hostile waters with a W. What you see instead is a guy not signing to fight the King fighter.

Biggs was just an opponent at that stage of the game and more along the lines of providing American viewers a chance to see Lewis in action. Very few people at the time were sending away for those early Lewis fights & if you did you knew Biggs had zero chance. Since so few people had seen any Lewis bouts, they thought Biggs had a shot & a lot of that was due to the amateur victory.

[he grant]

Sure, although I'm not sure I do ... Holyfield defeated a past prime Tyson who lost more game than a diminished Evander had lost ...

See how many rate Pep over Saddler ...

[Manos de Piedra]

I think tyson at his peak was better. once Don King got with him, he turned into a hired gun. He was a really good fight at one point.

[bodhi]

Sure, although I'm not sure I do ... Holyfield defeated a past prime Tyson who lost more game than a diminished Evander had lost ...

See how many rate Pep over Saddler ...

That's why Tyson was such a huge favourite over Holyfield :good

[Quitali Bitchko]

Repeating wrongs does not make them right ;)

You are wrong, Canibus81 is right. :deal

[Silver]

That's why Tyson was such a huge favourite over Holyfield :good
thats because people were convinced tyson was his old self but not realizing that his comeback was designed for him to look good. guys like mcneely, bruno, mathis and seldon were stiffs lined for tyson to feast on. so after knocking them out, people thought, hes back. while holyfield was koed by bowe and lost moorer. but fact is, those 4 guys make bowe and moorer look like atgs.( well, bruno was decent)

[Canibus81]

thats because people were convinced tyson was his old self but not realizing that his comeback was designed for him to look good. guys like mcneely, bruno, mathis and seldon were stiffs lined for tyson to feast on. so after knocking them out, people thought, hes back. while holyfield was koed by bowe and lost moorer. but fact is, those 4 guys make bowe and moorer look like atgs.( well, bruno was decent)

I agree. And Tyson didn't look no where near his old self in the 2nd Bruno fight. Only thing that looked good was the knockout, that was a vintage Tyson knockout. Other than that he was slower, with less headmovement and was throwing only one punch at a time. People were going more into the image of Mike Tyson, than the actual great fighter that he used to be.

[Beeston Brawler]

He was kinda helped that Bruno was absolutely frightened to death of him...... and was kinda mentally retired after winning the WBC title against McCall.

[Canibus81]

He was kinda helped that Bruno was absolutely frightened to death of him...... and was kinda mentally retired after winning the WBC title against McCall.

That wouldn't of mattered. He beat Bruno before when he wasn't scared of him. Tyson wasn't at his best for the first Bruno fight either, infact that was the first fight without Kevin Rooney and he looked like a complete more one dimensional fighter in the fight. After that is when the erosion of his skills began.

[Silver]

I agree. And Tyson didn't look no where near his old self in the 2nd Bruno fight. Only thing that looked good was the knockout, that was a vintage Tyson knockout. Other than that he was slower, with less headmovement and was throwing only one punch at a time. People were going more into the image of Mike Tyson, than the actual great fighter that he used to be.
the mcneely fight was a complete joke. a guy who was later koed by butterbean. tyson looked sloppy against mathis, missing wild shots. bruno and seldon offered very little resistance to tyson. bruno was scared to death and seldon, was koed by the wind of a tyson punch. none of these fights made tyson better. all together, he went 8 non-competive rds 4 fights. holyfield saw this and knew he could expose tyson's flaws and he did just that. just as you say, tyson was just living of his name but as far as technical skills were concerned, he was not very good and he payed for it.

[divac]

sure it can. what is the criteria ? h2h or p4p. personally i believe that the tyson that fought mike spinks would have won from any version of holyfield.

.......and you know such a thing because everyone that knows anything knows that Spinks was a destroyer at Heavyweight!:lol::nut

[sauhund II]

.......and you know such a thing because everyone that knows anything knows that Spinks was a destroyer at Heavyweight!:lol::nut
Lets just say that Spinks beat more accomplished opponents than the mighty blown up Lhwt Moorer who got in return ko'ed by a ancient conman (at this time of his career) named Foreman.........

So , exactly, who did Moorer" destroy " at Hw ? And while we are at it who did Bowe really destroy at Hw? Make no mistake I rate Bowe highly on abilities but besides the Holy trilogy where he would be without the fanman 3-0 his resume looks rather weak......

[sauhund II]

BTW, my problem with Holyfield is his non consistancy...........he was always up and down, even in his prime or slightly past it.............1-2 with Bowe, 1-1 with Moorer, really 0-2 with Lewis, some life and death battles with dopehead Cooper or "I do not belong at HW" Bobby C...............

The thing with Tyson is,in his heydays in the 80's when he took his craft seriously, when he was on, he was on......he completley cleaned the shit out the Hw scene while making it look super easy. He bumped everybody off and he was definitley the Number ONE HW, period. same can;t be said about Holyfield.

[salty trunks]

He was kinda helped that Bruno was absolutely frightened to death of him...... and was kinda mentally retired after winning the WBC title against McCall.

This is an amazing statement.

I dont know why Tyson trained for any fights he was the winner as soon as the contracts were signed?

For years and years Bruno spoke of revenge on Tyson and wanted a rematch.

[ironchamp]

BTW, my problem with Holyfield is his non consistancy...........he was always up and down, even in his prime or slightly past it.............1-2 with Bowe, 1-1 with Moorer, really 0-2 with Lewis, some life and death battles with dopehead Cooper or "I do not belong at HW" Bobby C...............

The thing with Tyson is,in his heydays in the 80's when he took his craft seriously, when he was on, he was on......he completley cleaned the shit out the Hw scene while making it look super easy. He bumped everybody off and he was definitley the Number ONE HW, period. same can;t be said about Holyfield.


Solid Post.

My thoughts exactly

[he grant]

Not a bad post but every almost every fight you mentioned came after he was 31 ... Both guys were amaziong fighters, all time heavyweight top ten , mid - level ...

[salty trunks]

BTW, my problem with Holyfield is his non consistancy...........he was always up and down, even in his prime or slightly past it.............1-2 with Bowe, 1-1 with Moorer, really 0-2 with Lewis, some life and death battles with dopehead Cooper or "I do not belong at HW" Bobby C...............

The thing with Tyson is,in his heydays in the 80's when he took his craft seriously, when he was on, he was on......he completley cleaned the shit out the Hw scene while making it look super easy. He bumped everybody off and he was definitley the Number ONE HW, period. same can;t be said about Holyfield.

Holyfield was a much smaller heavyweight. Tyson was a much bigger puncher

Tyson never fought Bowe

Tyson although past his best fought far less competitive against Lewis. Hard to compare them using that angle.

Tyson was the more dominate figure at heavyweight during his reign but his losses were far more one sided than Holyfields.

[ironchamp]

Holyfield was a much smaller heavyweight. Tyson was a much bigger puncher

Tyson never fought Bowe

Tyson although past his best fought far less competitive against Lewis. Hard to compare them using that angle.

Tyson was the more dominate figure at heavyweight during his reign but his losses were far more one sided than Holyfields.

Being a smaller Heavyweight shouldnt have a bearing in thier ranking.

Tyson Bowe was talked about but never came to fruition.

Tyson being the more dominant figure as Heavyweight Champion is precisely why I rank him above Holyfield. His losses may have been more one sided but his best wins were more decisive than Evander's Best Wins.

[Canibus81]

Being a smaller Heavyweight shouldnt have a bearing in thier ranking.

Tyson Bowe was talked about but never came to fruition.

Tyson being the more dominant figure as Heavyweight Champion is precisely why I rank him above Holyfield. His losses may have been more one sided but his best wins were more decisive than Evander's Best Wins.


And Tyson was a complete shell when he fought Lennox Lewis, Holyfield was a hell of a lot more preserved when he did, that can't even be debated.

[My2Sense]

If you're being objective: NO.


Exactly.

Not only did Holyfield settle this matter in the most direct manner possible by twice whupping Tyson in the ring, and under circumstances that he was never supposed to beat Tyson under, but he also had by far the better career and also trounced the guy who trounced Tyson. There's no actual reason to rate Tyson over Holy.

[My2Sense]

Paul Pender got the better of Ray Robinson but I know who Id bet on H2H.... timing is important in boxing (any sport actually)

Not according to many people who have seen those fights.

[My2Sense]

And Tyson was a complete shell when he fought Lennox Lewis, Holyfield was a hell of a lot more preserved when he did, that can't even be debated.

Yes it can; Holy was so deteriorated a few years before he fought Lennox, that he was roundly considered "shot" and there was even debate over whether he should even he be licensed to fight.

[Muchmoore]

Exactly.

Not only did Holyfield settle this matter in the most direct manner possible by twice whupping Tyson in the ring, and under circumstances that he was never supposed to beat Tyson under

How can you say that? It amazes me how people ignore Tyson's prison stint and the fact that even after he got fights after prison, they were close to useless. Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for war.

[My2Sense]

How can you say that?

Because most everyone else on the planet did as well.

It amazes me how people ignore Tyson's prison stint and the fact that even after he got fights after prison, they were close to useless.

The fights re-established him as a titleholder and a force in the division - hardly "useless." They were more than enough to prepare him for a fight with an older and badly shopworn ex-champ with obvious stamina problems. The only question now was whether or not Tyson was really ever better than Holy to begin with.

Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for war.

No he wasn't, he was older and more deteriorated than Tyson, and had been forced to retire earlier because of health issues. A war was the last thing he looked ready for.

[Robbi]

How can you say that? It amazes me how people ignore Tyson's prison stint and the fact that even after he got fights after prison, they were close to useless. Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for war.

Ali came back after 3 years and pulled off some massive wins. Thats exactly why Tyson ain't among the top tier heavyweights of all-time. Nobody is ignoring Tyson's stint in jail. When he came back and fought tomato cans before taking on Holyfield, who himself was thought to be easy pickings for Tyson, it never served him well. Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for a war, true. But he was also written off by everyone apart from himself before the first bell rang.

It seems to me that Tyson fans seem to ignore his mediocre wins and his defeats after he came out of jail. Thats part of the reason why he aint great. And I'm not talking baloney at all. Getting knocked down and getting back up to win, having stints in prison, going into retirement and making a comeback and generally pulling off great wins when your percieved to be past your prime. Thats what makes greatness.

[My2Sense]

Getting knocked down and getting back up to win, having stints in prison, going into retirement and making a comeback and generally pulling off great wins when your percieved to be past your prime. Thats what makes greatness.

Good point.

[Robbi]

Sugar Ray Robinson came out of retirement in his mid-30's and won the middleweight title 5 times when he was past his prime. He rebounded from setbacks.

Ali won the heavyweight title twice after a 3 year lay off. He beat Norton, Frazier and a prime Foreman.

Tyson wasn't 'shot' as many claim post prison. Tyson was a great ontop fighter. When the confidence was sapped out him by the likes of Douglas and Holyfield he was never the same again, unless he was in with a stiff.

[Canibus81]

Because most everyone else on the planet did as well.



The fights re-established him as a titleholder and a force in the division - hardly "useless." They were more than enough to prepare him for a fight with an older and badly shopworn ex-champ with obvious stamina problems. The only question now was whether or not Tyson was really ever better than Holy to begin with.



No he wasn't, he was older and more deteriorated than Tyson, and had been forced to retire earlier because of health issues. A war was the last thing he looked ready for.


I'm not gonna waste my time with you because just from your posts I can tell your bias.

[Canibus81]

Sugar Ray Robinson came out of retirement in his mid-30's and won the middleweight title 5 times when he was past his prime. He rebounded from setbacks.

Ali won the heavyweight title twice after a 3 year lay off. He beat Norton, Frazier and a prime Foreman.

Tyson wasn't 'shot' as many claim post prison. Tyson was a great ontop fighter. When the confidence was sapped out him by the likes of Douglas and Holyfield he was never the same again, unless he was in with a stiff.

You are too, and I've argued with you in the past about this before and I hate redundancy.

[Robbi]

Holyfield would always have handed Tyson his ass. Too much heart, toughness and a brilliant skillset to match. Holyfield would never have folded if a prime Tyson had 2-3 good rounds against him. The same cannot be said for Tyson. And trust me, Holyfield is on a different level from Berbick, Spinks, Tucker and Ruddock.

[Muchmoore]

Ali came back after 3 years and pulled off some massive wins. Thats exactly why Tyson ain't among the top tier heavyweights of all-time. Nobody is ignoring Tyson's stint in jail. When he came back and fought tomato cans before taking on Holyfield, who himself was thought to be easy pickings for Tyson, it never served him well. Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for a war, true. But he was also written off by everyone apart from himself before the first bell rang.


That's because people were so enamored by Tyson that they simply ignored the facts...

Tyson isn't Ali but that has no bearing on this thread.

[Robbi]

You are too, and I've argued with you in the past about this before and I hate redundancy.

I'am too what? It happens to be my opinion. You're only seeing the bias because you happen to disagree with me. Typical Tyson fan it seems. Always a pain to get into a debate with. Can't handle the truth.

[Muchmoore]

The fights re-established him as a titleholder and a force in the division - hardly "useless."

Yeah, McNeeley, Seldon, Mathis, and Bruno really prepared him for a fight against Holyfield :lol:

I don't think that you even believe this stuff.

[Canibus81]

That's because people were so enamored by Tyson that they simply ignored the facts...

Tyson isn't Ali but that has no bearing on this thread.

Tyson also wasn't allowed to train, Ali was in his absence. And Ali also had more hunger and didn't abuse his body with the fast livin lifestyle the way mike did in his comeback, WHICH HAS A LOT TO DO WITH EVERYTHING.

[Squire]

Holyfield over Tyson for the same reasons Vitali wont rank as high as he potentially could have on an all time list. Judge based on wins and actual achievements, not just how good they could have been.

Let's not forget Holyfield beat Valuev at 44 or something, not a bad achievement for an old guy

[Canibus81]

Holyfield over Tyson for the same reasons Vitali wont rank as high as he potentially could have on an all time list. Judge based on wins and actual achievements, not just how good they could have been.

Let's not forget Holyfield beat Valuev at 44 or something, not a bad achievement for an old guy

Record says he didn't, so as far i'm concerned he still loss. And Valuev is a bum.

[Robbi]

Tyson's reign at the top was brief. Around 3 years and 4 months to be precise. Not exactly a lenghty reign. However, it's not all about the length of a reign, it's the quality within it. Berbick, Holmes, Spinks, Thomas and Tucker. Probably his best wins while at his best. But Holmes was well on the downside at that stage of his career after a 2 year lay off. He was at least 6 years past his prime. Spinks was a natural light-heavyweight, although unbeaten and generally percieved as a slick operator with decent power at the weight. Thomas and Tucker were simply very good contenders with some talent about them. Douglas? A 42-1 underdog who wasn't given a prayer.

Tyson again holds two wins over Ruddock just before prison. Very good wins, it must be said.

Bruno was average and was made for Tyson. Credit to Tyson though for claiming the title back.

Holyfield was the choice for Tyson instead of Lewis, who took Tyson and the WBC to court trying to get a title shot. Tyson took the easier fight on paper against Holyfield for more dollars and it came back to bite him in the ass.

Now, if Tyson had beaten Holyfield in the rematch and then ripped Lewis' head off around 97-98 then he'd be looked upon differently by myself.

The fact of the matter is after Douglas, Tyson proved next to nothing. Mathias, Seldon, Botha, Francis, Ettienne, Neilson, etc. Get outta here. :good

[My2Sense]

I'm not gonna waste my time with you because just from your posts I can tell your bias.

No you can't, because my posts only refer to truth and facts. It just happens that the truth/facts don't support your spins on things, but that's hardly my fault.

[My2Sense]

Record says he didn't, so as far i'm concerned he still loss.

So I guess you also think Holyfield held Lennox Lewis to a draw, because the record says so?

[salty trunks]

It seems to me that Tyson fans seem to ignore his mediocre wins and his defeats after he came out of jail. Thats part of the reason why he aint great. And I'm not talking baloney at all. Getting knocked down and getting back up to win, having stints in prison, going into retirement and making a comeback and generally pulling off great wins when your percieved to be past your prime. Thats what makes greatness.


I find this paragraph a bit strange.

Are you suggesting a fighter has to have a comeback and pull off a great win or get up from a knockdown to be considered great?

Thats not what makes greatness. Greatness can be classified in many different ways in boxing. How many heavyweights have the resume and accomplishments of Mike Tyson and arent considered great?

[Squire]

Record says he didn't, so as far i'm concerned he still loss. And Vaualuev is a bum.

So the judges were right? Bullshit. Holyfield beat Valuev, and the win counts towards his legacy. In some situations, the judges decision can be disregarded with common sense

[Robbi]

I find this paragraph a bit strange.

Are you suggesting a fighter has to have a comeback and pull off a great win or get up from a knockdown to be considered great?

Thats not what makes greatness. Greatness can be classified in many different ways in boxing. How many heavyweights have the resume and accomplishments of Mike Tyson and arent considered great?

Well it certainly helps if a fighter actually makes a comeback and proves as much or more than he did when in his prime. Yes, some fighters retire and feel that don't need to make comebacks. And a fighter does have to get up from a knockdown to be considered great, because it doesn't help if he stays on the canvas and gets counted out. That would be a loss I'm afraid. What would make up for the loss if that was the case? Getting back in there and handing a defeat to the man who previously but an "L" on your record.

Larry Holmes had the best recovery of a knockdown I have ever seen. Taking into account the impact of the punch from Shavers, it was quite an achivement. Defeat had stared him in the eyes for a matter of seconds. Everyone in the arena thought the title was changing hands. But Holmes managed to somehow get up and regain his senses. He won the fight via stoppage 4 rounds later.

He also repeated the feat against Snipes two years later when he got up and fucked his head off the ringpost. The man was on queer street and again it looked like a follow up attack from Snipes would have ended it considering how Holmes looked upon rising. Again Holmes won via stoppage.

Tyson aint got off the canvas once to win. And he never won a rematch against any of the fighters who beat him. Although winning rematches and getting up off the canvas to turn the tables is only part of the ingredients that makes greatness....What exactly impresses you about Tyson?

[salty trunks]

Well it certainly helps if a fighter actually makes a comeback and proves as much or more than he did when in his prime. Yes, some fighters retire and feel that don't need to make comebacks. And a fighter does have to get up from a knockdown to be considered great, because it doesn't help if he stays on the canvas and gets counted out. That would be a loss I'm afraid. What would make up for the loss if that was the case? Getting back in there and handing a defeat to the man who previously but an "L" on your record.

Larry Holmes had the best recovery of a knockdown I have ever seen. Taking into account the impact of the punch from Shavers, it was quite an achivement. Defeat had stared him in the eyes for a matter of seconds. Everyone in the arena thought the title was changing hands. But Holmes managed to somehow get up and regain his senses. He won the fight via stoppage 4 rounds later.

He also repeated the feat against Snipes two years later when he got up and fucked his head off the ringpost. The man was on queer street and again it looked like a follow up attack from Snipes would have ended it considering how Holmes looked upon rising. Again Holmes won via stoppage.

Tyson aint got off the canvas once to win. And he never won a rematch against any of the fighters who beat him. Although winning rematches and getting up off the canvas to turn the tables is only part of the ingredients that makes greatness....What exactly impresses you about Tyson?

Tyson was a dominant fighter in the 80's. His opposition wasnt questionable, in fact by todays standard, it might be considered stellar. Certainly on par with Mr Holmes wouldnt you agree?

Are you suggesting if Tyson arose from a knockdown against say Tony Tucker in route to his 12 round UD that would classify him more as great?

Personally I put more merit in winning a one sided decision or knocking a guy out as opposed to getting up from a knockdown to win against comparable opposition?

Common stigma associated with dominant fighters. If they dont bleed and struggle they cant be great. I believe Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather suffer from this same syndrome?

[JohnThomas1]

Tyson topics always bring out the best :lol:

[Muchmoore]

Personally I put more merit in winning a one sided decision or knocking a guy out as opposed to getting up from a knockdown to win against comparable opposition?


Lennox Lewis never rose up from a knockdown to win either. You don't hear that one, though.

[Russell]

Lennox Lewis never rose up from a knockdown to win either. You don't hear that one, though.

I've heard that plenty on my time on these boards, actually.

[PetethePrince]

ESB CLASSIC FORUM FINAL HEAVYWEIGHT RANKINGS:

1. 1675 Muhammad Ali (52)
2. 1375 Joe Louis (23)
3. 638 Rocky Marciano (1)
4. 580 Larry Holmes
5. 488 Lennox Lewis (1)
6. 462 Jack Johnson (1)
7. 318 George Foreman
8. 318 Jack Dempsey (2)
9. 233 Mike Tyson
10. 221 Joe Frazier
11. 217 Sonny Liston
12. 106 Evander Holyfield


/END Thread.

[bodhi]

Ali came back after 3 years and pulled off some massive wins. Thats exactly why Tyson ain't among the top tier heavyweights of all-time. Nobody is ignoring Tyson's stint in jail. When he came back and fought tomato cans before taking on Holyfield, who himself was thought to be easy pickings for Tyson, it never served him well. Holyfield had been in with the best for years and was ready for a war, true. But he was also written off by everyone apart from himself before the first bell rang.

It seems to me that Tyson fans seem to ignore his mediocre wins and his defeats after he came out of jail. Thats part of the reason why he aint great. And I'm not talking baloney at all. Getting knocked down and getting back up to win, having stints in prison, going into retirement and making a comeback and generally pulling off great wins when your percieved to be past your prime. Thats what makes greatness.

That's a good balanced post :good

[Nay_Sayer]

It is ridiculous to recognize Foreman as the legitimate HW champ when Briggs "beat" him in 1997.

Foreman hadn't fought any top contenders in the 3 years since he legitimately won the title. Winning the title doesn't give one an indefinite claim to champion. That's the whole point of title defenses. A champion is supposed to defend his title against top-notch opposition to reaffirm his place as champion.
Crapola.

Foreman beat the man. So, that makes Foreman the man to beat - which is what Briggs did.

Who Foreman defended his title against is a moot point. Titles are won and lost in the ring.

Like I said, in no way did Holyfield's victory over Tyson interrupt the lineage of the title that Lewis won from Briggs.

[bodhi]

Yeah, McNeeley, Seldon, Mathis, and Bruno really prepared him for a fight against Holyfield :lol:

I don't think that you even believe this stuff.

Yeah, they did because Holy wasn't seen as beeing better as them back then. In history there is a rule of hindsight beeing not allowed. Why should it be different in boxing history?

[bodhi]

Lennox Lewis never rose up from a knockdown to win either. You don't hear that one, though.

True. But he came back to beat the guys who beat him. Tyson never did that. :good

[redrooster]

Evander was champion in a forgotten era while Mike was champ in a more important time of the heavyweight division and made a much bigger impact. Holyfield was a little dull if you ask me and never took the division anywhere. Even in defeat, the Tyson Douglas fight is one of the greatest moments in boxing history. It's up there with Hagler-Hearns for drama

[redrooster]

True. But he came back to beat the guys who beat him. Tyson never did that. :good

Lennox Lewis, another forgotten champion in a forgotten decade

[lefthook31]

I dont think it can be justified but all this chatter about Tyson not being a great fighter is a joke. :?

[Robbi]

Are you suggesting if Tyson arose from a knockdown against say Tony Tucker in route to his 12 round UD that would classify him more as great?

Although winning rematches and getting up off the canvas to turn the tables is only part of the ingredients that makes greatness.

[Robbi]

I dont think it can be justified but all this chatter about Tyson not being a great fighter is a joke. :?

I'd like to correct myself. He's great but not great.

:good

[bodhi]

I'd like to correct myself. He's great but not great.

:good

He is great but not an alltime great.

[Quitali Bitchko]

He is great but not an alltime great.


Not an alltime great? 2 time HW champ, youngest HW champ, first one to unifiy the titles, only one to unifiy it by beating 3 different champions, beat 2 all time greats (one undefeated, one past his prime but far from done), defended his title 9 times and was very dominant for 4 years won the title again after spending over 3 years in prison and won it twice...not an all time great? :deal

[E-B]

He is great but not an alltime great.

:patsch

...let's discredit Ali's status for relying on his freakish ability to take punishment past his prime while we're at it!

[bodhi]

Not an alltime great? 2 time HW champ, youngest HW champ, first one to unifiy the titles, only one to unifiy it by beating 3 different champions, beat 2 all time greats (one undefeated, one past his prime but far from done), defended his title 9 times and was very dominant for 4 years won the title again after spending over 3 years in prison and won it twice...not an all time great? :deal

I only recognize my first three tiers (which are roughly the Top10) of each division as ATGs as I think this description is used far too often. Tyson is just outside my Tier 3 in the Tier 4, as are Dempsey, Langford and Wills.

[Muchmoore]

I've heard that plenty on my time on these boards, actually.

If it's such an important part of legacy than why is Lennox routinely in top fives (including mine)

[Hookie]

BTW, my problem with Holyfield is his non consistancy...........he was always up and down, even in his prime or slightly past it.............1-2 with Bowe, 1-1 with Moorer, really 0-2 with Lewis, some life and death battles with dopehead Cooper or "I do not belong at HW" Bobby C...............

The thing with Tyson is,in his heydays in the 80's when he took his craft seriously, when he was on, he was on......he completley cleaned the shit out the Hw scene while making it look super easy. He bumped everybody off and he was definitley the Number ONE HW, period. same can;t be said about Holyfield.

People says this a lot about Holyfield but consider this...

He went undefeated from 1984-1992. During this 8 years stretch he went 10-0 (7) in World Title fights. He was the Undisputed World Champ at CW and HW during this time. He did not lose a fight until after the age of 30.

He won his first World Title in only his 12th pro fight (vs. Hall of Famer Dwight Qawi). He did more in 28 fights than most fighters have ever done.

How was he inconsistent during his prime?

Sure after age 30 he lost a few, most of his losses came after age 35 though. He was 37 when he lost a close fight to a prime Lennox Lewis. Keep in mind he is still fighting at age 47.

Prime vs. Prime Holyfield beats every fighter he ever faced with the possible exception of Larry Holmes. I think a prime Foreman would have lost to a prime Holyfield in a great fight. The best versions of Bowe, Lewis, and Tyson lose to Holyfield at his very best IMO.

Many people get it twisted just because Holyfield stopped Tyson in '96. In '96 Holyfield was past prime. Holyfield rose to the occasion and did great but he was far from prime. Holyfield was able to fight in spurts and rest when he had to against the shorter "non-giant sized" Tyson. Vs. fighter like Bowe and Lewis Holyfield wouldn't have been able to do this.

The very best HW version of Holyfield was between 1989-1991 when he was beating the likes of Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Douglas, and Foreman among others. When the Tyson fight fell thru (for the the November 8, 1991 date) Holyfield lost his hunger for a while.

[Muchmoore]

True. But he came back to beat the guys who beat him. Tyson never did that. :good

Because Tyson only lost to ATG's, with the exception of Douglas who refused to fight him again. Douglas was the only guy that beat him when he was anywhere near his best, as well.
Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman... Basically two guys who he had less business losing to than Tyson against Douglas considering the form Buster was in.

[Hookie]

I do consider Holyfield and Tyson all-time greats BTW.

[E-B]

I do consider Holyfield and Tyson all-time greats BTW.

Only dimwits don't.

[Unforgiven]

Holyfield above Tyson on my list.

[My2Sense]

Yeah, McNeeley, Seldon, Mathis, and Bruno really prepared him for a fight against Holyfield :lol:

Who did Bowe, Lennox, and Moorer beat just prior to their wins over Holy?


I don't think that you even believe this stuff.

So it's just my imagination that Tyson opened as a 25-1 favorite. :nut

[salty trunks]

Who did Bowe, Lennox, and Moorer beat just prior to their wins over Holy?



Which of these three fighters took a four year layoff before returning to boxing and facing Holyfield? LOL..

Not defending Tyson because I dont rank him over Holyfield but you seem to be making a weak case in discrediting Tyson.

[salty trunks]

People says this a lot about Holyfield but consider this...

He went undefeated from 1984-1992. During this 8 years stretch he went 10-0 (7) in World Title fights. He was the Undisputed World Champ at CW and HW during this time. He did not lose a fight until after the age of 30.

He won his first World Title in only his 12th pro fight (vs. Hall of Famer Dwight Qawi). He did more in 28 fights than most fighters have ever done.

How was he inconsistent during his prime?

Sure after age 30 he lost a few, most of his losses came after age 35 though. He was 37 when he lost a close fight to a prime Lennox Lewis. Keep in mind he is still fighting at age 47.

Prime vs. Prime Holyfield beats every fighter he ever faced with the possible exception of Larry Holmes. I think a prime Foreman would have lost to a prime Holyfield in a great fight. The best versions of Bowe, Lewis, and Tyson lose to Holyfield at his very best IMO.

Many people get it twisted just because Holyfield stopped Tyson in '96. In '96 Holyfield was past prime. Holyfield rose to the occasion and did great but he was far from prime. Holyfield was able to fight in spurts and rest when he had to against the shorter "non-giant sized" Tyson. Vs. fighter like Bowe and Lewis Holyfield wouldn't have been able to do this.

The very best HW version of Holyfield was between 1989-1991 when he was beating the likes of Thomas, Dokes, Stewart, Douglas, and Foreman among others. When the Tyson fight fell thru (for the the November 8, 1991 date) Holyfield lost his hunger for a while.



I think a prime Foreman would have lost to a prime Holyfield in a great fight. The best versions of Bowe, Lewis, and Tyson lose to Holyfield at his very best IMO.



This is a good summary, but do you think Holyfield was past his best when he fought Riddick Bowe the first time, because it seems both fighters were at their respective peaks when they first fought???

[My2Sense]

Which of these three fighters took a four year layoff before returning to boxing and facing Holyfield? LOL..

Tyson didn't "return to boxing and face Holy," he had fought four times in the span of a year leading into the first Holy fight. He was as active as any HW in the division at that time.


Not defending Tyson because I dont rank him over Holyfield but you seem to be making a weak case in discrediting Tyson.

Only if you think not going along with revisionist spinjobs is "weak."

[salty trunks]

Tyson didn't "return to boxing and face Holy," he had fought four times in the span of a year leading into the first Holy fight. He was as active as any HW in the division at that time.




Only if you think not going along with revisionist spinjobs is "weak."

Interesting perspective. I take it you feel Tyson returned to boxing as the same fighter he was when he left??

[Robbi]

Because Tyson only lost to ATG's, with the exception of Douglas who refused to fight him again.

Nope. Holyfield was next to fight the winner, who was Douglas. It's not as if Douglas never had a fight lined up after he beat Tyson. I could see your point if Douglas simply choose Holyfield rather than give Tyson a return. But Holyfield was due to fight the winner. Perhaps Douglas would have fought Tyson in a rematch had he won against Holyfield.

:good

[Robbi]

I'm amazed the amount of times certain fans have this little thing in their heads about a fighter 'refusing' to fight another simply because they never fought.

De La Hoya ducking Tszyu is another classic example.

[lefthook31]

Nope. Holyfield was next to fight the winner, who was Douglas. It's not as if Douglas never had a fight lined up after he beat Tyson. I could see your point if Douglas simply choose Holyfield rather than give Tyson a return. But Holyfield was due to fight the winner. Perhaps Douglas would have fought Tyson in a rematch had he won against Holyfield.

:good


Thats right Holy was the mandatory, Douglas had to fight him. Beating Douglas after Holyfield beat him the way he did, would have done nothing for Tysons legacy regardless of what you think.

[My2Sense]

Beating Douglas after Holyfield beat him the way he did, would have done nothing for Tysons legacy regardless of what you think.

Yes it would've. Beating a guy who beat you and proving outright that a loss was a fluke is always better for a legacy than never rematching the guy and leaving it up to speculation whether or not it was a fluke. Joe Louis would not have as impressive a legacy as he does now if he never beat Schmeling in a return, and Lennox Lewis' legacy wouldn't be nearly as well-regarded as it is today if not for the distinction that he beat every man he ever faced at some point.

[Hookie]

This is a good summary, but do you think Holyfield was past his best when he fought Riddick Bowe the first time, because it seems both fighters were at their respective peaks when they first fought???

I don't think Holyfield was washed up when he fought Bowe but I don't think this was Holyfield at his very best either.

Holyfield had sparred with Bowe a good bit. Holyfield used to make Bowe quit. My point is he thought very little of Bowe's abilities and underestimated him. Holyfield fought Bowe toe to toe and came up a bit short. Bowe did get away with countless lowblows and never lost a point in this fight.

In round 11 a shot to the back of Holyfield's head forced Holyfield to use the ropes to keep from going all the way down. This resulted in a 10-8 round for Bowe. I don't think Bowe should have gotten credit for a knockdown. With that said, I still would have had Bowe up by a point... 115-114 (6 rounds to 5 with 1 even)

Holyfield was in great shape mentally and physically for the rematch even if Bowe wasn't. I think Holyfield may have stopped Bowe if not for the "Fan Man" incident.

The 3rd fight was insane. Holyfield seemed ill in the fight but he still had Bowe almost out in the 6th. With plenty of time left in the round after a stunned Bowe got up from a hard knockdown... Holyfield was spent and couldn't finish Bowe. My 7 year old son could have finished Bowe off at that point. Holyfield never did get a 2nd wind and was stopped in the 8th.

[Silver]

Yes it would've. Beating a guy who beat you and proving outright that a loss was a fluke is always better for a legacy than never rematching the guy and leaving it up to speculation whether or not it was a fluke. Joe Louis would not have as impressive a legacy as he does now if he never beat Schmeling in a return, and Lennox Lewis' legacy wouldn't be nearly as well-regarded as it is today if not for the distinction that he beat every man he ever faced at some point.
there was no point to fighting douglas because he had lossed the title holyfield thus tyson was signed to fight holyfield. tyson tried to get an immeditae rematch with douglas but as already stated, hoylfield already had first dibbs on the winner. and besides, douglas after losing the title, quit boxing for 6 years. and tyson tried to fight douglas again years later but douglas got koed by lou saverese in 98' , so tyson ended fighting saverese.

[My2Sense]

there was no point to fighting douglas because he had lossed the title holyfield thus tyson was signed to fight holyfield.

Tyson and Holy didn't sign to fight for nearly a year after Douglas lost the title, during which time Tyson fought three other times. If Douglas was still active in that time, there would've been plenty of point to the fight for Tyson, which would've been to avenge a very decisive and embarrassing career loss (his only one to that point).

[bodhi]

Because Tyson only lost to ATG's, with the exception of Douglas who refused to fight him again. Douglas was the only guy that beat him when he was anywhere near his best, as well.
Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman... Basically two guys who he had less business losing to than Tyson against Douglas considering the form Buster was in.

McCall and Rahman had both better careers than Douglas and losing to them, and avenging those defeats, is still better than losing to a 42-1 underdog. Hindsight is not allowed in history. :bart
Danny Williams and Kevin McBride are ATGs now :huh

[salty trunks]

McCall and Rahman had both better careers than Douglas and losing to them, and avenging those defeats, is still better than losing to a 42-1 underdog. Hindsight is not allowed in history. :bart
Danny Williams and Kevin McBride are ATGs now :huh

Tyson was the one who made Douglas that big of an underdog wouldnt you agree?

Douglas was certainly a capable fighter and fought a great fight against Tyson.

Douglas also held a decisive win over Mcall before facing Tyson. What would have the odds been on a Mcall Tyson fight at that time?

The odds had little to do with James Douglas the fighter.

[Hookie]

Tyson was the one who made Douglas that big of an underdog wouldnt you agree?

Douglas was certainly a capable fighter and fought a great fight against Tyson.

Douglas also held a decisive win over Mcall before facing Tyson. What would have the odds been on a Mcall Tyson fight at that time?

The odds had little to do with James Douglas the fighter.

True, Douglas was a good fighter. I think he was ranked as high as #4 by one of the organizations... I know that doesn't really mean anything though. Douglas had went 6-0 (4) following his loss to Tony Tucker and leading up to his fight with Tyson. He had beat the likes of Jerry "Wimpy" Halstead (KO9), Oliver McCall (W10) and Trevor Berbick (W10).

He had outboxed Tony Tucker for much of the fight but ran out of gas and was stopped in round 10. Douglas had stamina problems in many of his fights. He did have respiratory problems.

It was no surprise that he was big underdog vs. Tyson though. Most HWs would be in those days. McCall would have been a huge underdog as well, not many people even knew of McCall back then.

Anyway, Douglas barely trained for Holyfield and retired for about 6 years following the loss. It's not Holyfield's fault Douglas came to fight like that. Holyfield was ready for war. Holyfield wanted to fight Tyson for several years but had to settle for Douglas. He did what he had to do vs. Douglas.

[lefthook31]

Tyson and Holy didn't sign to fight for nearly a year after Douglas lost the title, during which time Tyson fought three other times. If Douglas was still active in that time, there would've been plenty of point to the fight for Tyson, which would've been to avenge a very decisive and embarrassing career loss (his only one to that point).
Theres a reason Douglas didnt fight for nearly a year and thats because of all the litigation surrounding the events of the outcome of the fight and Douglas himself, it had nothing to do with Tyson not wanting the rematch which seems to be what you're implying.
Evander Holyfield was the mandatory challenger, Douglas had to fight him to retain his titles, plus he was offered a shit load of money he wouldnt have made with Don King.
And to your other point, youre right technically Tyson beating Douglas would be better than not fighting him at all, but if one could possibly look outside the box for once, and use a pretty fair judgement knowing Douglas, Evander Holyfield took most of the luster off that big win with the outcome of their fight. That along with Douglas' previous performances made it pretty easy to sum up that it was back to the old Douglas.
Douglas was a good fighter and had a decent little run rededicating himself to boxing topped off with a motivating life event and a great performance against a poorly prepared unfocused Tyson. That seemed to be good enough for Douglas as proof by the way he showed up and performed against Holyfield. If he would have showed half the heart he did against Tyson and still lost to Holyfield, he probably would have gotten a rematch with Tyson shortly after.
Either way losing to Douglas seems to be overblown anyway. Douglas was a capable fighter. He had good skills and everyone knew it. The question was dedication and heart, which he showed in the Tyson fight and performed like an elite fighter for that one night.
I talk about Riddick Bowe a lot, because it was a similar scenario, only Bowe was more consistent than Douglas and had a bigger fighting heart but another heavyweight that never fufilled his fullest potential.
Most people knew Douglas had the skillset to be up there with the best of them, but he didnt have the fighting guts to carry them out.

[Canibus81]

Because Tyson only lost to ATG's, with the exception of Douglas who refused to fight him again. Douglas was the only guy that beat him when he was anywhere near his best, as well.
Lennox lost to McCall and Rahman... Basically two guys who he had less business losing to than Tyson against Douglas considering the form Buster was in.

And Douglas had a hell of a lot more talent than than Rahman and mcall could ever have. Infact most of Tyson's opponents in the 80's did.

[Silver]

Tyson and Holy didn't sign to fight for nearly a year after Douglas lost the title, during which time Tyson fought three other times. If Douglas was still active in that time, there would've been plenty of point to the fight for Tyson, which would've been to avenge a very decisive and embarrassing career loss (his only one to that point).
there you go, you said it yourself. if douglas was active. douglas quit boxing for 6 years after holyfield koed him. he became a non-factor.

[punchy]

Douglas won one million dollars in the Tyson fight and received twenty million for the Holyfield fight to put that in perspective a house that costs two million today would have cost three hundred thousand back then. I understand Douglas is still a wealthy man after investing in property, although if any one knows different please post.

[Arka]

[/B]

Bullshit. The Holmes Holyfield fought was better than the one Tyson fought. He was back in his routine and didn't come off a long layoff and a short preperation time.

I've seen those fights. Holyfield in fact was landing his overhead right in his fight against Holmes,but didn't have the power to put away Larry.In Holmes fight against Ray Mercer,Mercer was continually outboxed and thrown off balance .He couldn't string together accurate punches.

I think Holmes with a little more preparation could have got into better shape for his fight with Tyson,but I can't see how he was particularly better when he faced Holyfield or Mercer.

BTW I'd say the first knock down Tyson inflicted on Holmes to start his downfall was incredible.The one,two combination-the first punch of which knocked away Holmes' right hand protecting his jawline-was genius.

[bodhi]

Tyson was the one who made Douglas that big of an underdog wouldnt you agree?

Douglas was certainly a capable fighter and fought a great fight against Tyson.

Douglas also held a decisive win over Mcall before facing Tyson. What would have the odds been on a Mcall Tyson fight at that time?

The odds had little to do with James Douglas the fighter.

I never said Douglas wasn't a capable fighter. But he was not even a fringe contender historically. McCall was not much more than a sparringspartner back then, he only became a known name years later. Hindsight isn't allowed when judging historical events.

[bodhi]

And Douglas had a hell of a lot more talent than than Rahman and mcall could ever have. Infact most of Tyson's opponents in the 80's did.

Talent means shit if you aren't able to use it. And where Doulgas and most of the 80s fighters underachieved, Rahman and McCall overachieved. I think more highly of two than of most of the 80s fighters because of that.

[lefthook31]

Talent means shit if you aren't able to use it. And where Doulgas and most of the 80s fighters underachieved, Rahman and McCall overachieved. I think more highly of two than of most of the 80s fighters because of that.
Maybe it was a little easier to overachieve in the 90's? :good

[lefthook31]

I never said Douglas wasn't a capable fighter. But he was not even a fringe contender historically. McCall was not much more than a sparringspartner back then, he only became a known name years later. Hindsight isn't allowed when judging historical events.
Not even a fringe contender? What are you talking about he was always in the mix throughout the latter part of his career. He fought Tucker for the title and lost and then worked his way back into contention by beating Berbick and Mcall and earning his shot at Tyson. Anyone who watched Douglas knew he was a pretty well rounded fighter, certainly moreso than Rahman.

[bodhi]

Maybe it was a little easier to overachieve in the 90's? :good

The 90s were a beter era for hws than the 80s and by quite a bit.

[bodhi]

Not even a fringe contender? What are you talking about he was always in the mix throughout the latter part of his career. He fought Tucker for the title and lost and then worked his way back into contention by beating Berbick and Mcall and earning his shot at Tyson. Anyone who watched Douglas knew he was a pretty well rounded fighter, certainly moreso than Rahman.

Read again what I wrote. Look out especially for the little word "historically" :deal

[lefthook31]

Read again what I wrote. Look out especially for the little word "historically" :deal
Disagree on your assessment of the 90's vs 80's. Definitely more skilled technicians in the 80's. The 90's was filled with a bunch of big uncoordinated oafs.
I dont get what you mean historically then? Douglas fought for the title twice over his career. Historically that would make him a solid contender of his era??

[bodhi]

Disagree on your assessment of the 90's vs 80's. Definitely more skilled technicians in the 80's. The 90's was filled with a bunch of big uncoordinated oafs.
I dont get what you mean historically then? Douglas fought for the title twice over his career. Historically that would make him a solid contender of his era??

With historically I mean that, when you throw in all contenders from all eras he would be a fringe contender. At best.

The 90s overall are a better era than the 80s with it's fat, drugged, unmotivated, underachieving hws.

[Arka]

To misquote a nursery rhyme,when the 80s fighters were good they were very good,when they were bad they were horrid.


The 90s overall are a better era than the 80s with it's fat, drugged, unmotivated, underachieving hws.
To a certain extent,yes.The advent of HGH in the 90s would have meant that fighters could maintain mass and keep off body fat with less intensity of training.It would also allow say a cruiserweight like Holyfield to get a heavyweight bone structure past the age of thirty .The danger,of course, was there of fighters failing to develop their boxing skills and losing their mobility because of excess mass.

When a 90s fighter like McCall suffered crack cocaine withdrawal symptoms in the ring against Lewis,
he still looked to be in good physical-if not mental-nick.

[Canibus81]

With historically I mean that, when you throw in all contenders from all eras he would be a fringe contender. At best.

The 90s overall are a better era than the 80s with it's fat, drugged, unmotivated, underachieving hws.


They were underachieveing because Tyson beat most of them, that's why. None of them came in out of shape when fighting Tyson, NONE. And the 80's had way more talented heavyweights than the 90's did. Great ameuter credentials, and loads of athletic prowess.

[Arka]

Holmes and Tubbs could have come in better shape against Tyson.

My point is this:I dont think when we hit the magic number 1990,the heavyweight division became magically better (or worse for that matter).

The elite contenders of the periods-before and after the collapse of boxing as one of America's major sports-had different strengths and weaknesses.

Personally,I find the earlier heavyweights more a interesting bunch.

[Canibus81]

Holmes and Tubbs could have come in better shape against Tyson.
My point is this:I dont think when we hit the magic number 1990,the heavyweight division became magically better (or worse for that matter).
The elite contenders from both these periodds-before and after the collapse of boxing as one of America's major sports-had different strengths and weaknesses.


Holmes was 10pds. lighter for the Tyson fight than when he fought Holyfield 4 yrs. later who most people tried to to say he looked better which is bullshit. He definetly didn't fight like he came in not in great shape. Regardless of what excuse Holmes uses, he fought very well against Tyson and was the far more experienced fighter, and still had good cordination.

As for Tubbs, Tubbs was always a big guy and didn't have a great body to begin with, that doesn't mean he wasn't ready to fight.(fedor in MMA is an example of that, he looks like the pills berry doughboy but is a hell of lot stronger and faster than you think by looking at his body) Infact Tubbs looked extremely fast and motivated when he fought Tyson, he actually won the first round in the fight, and was highly competitive in the second before Tyson caught him.

[Arka]

Holmes was definitely bulkier in the chest and shoulders against Holyfield and Mercer,than against Tyson. :think

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One more for comparison:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

At his peak:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Canibus81]

Holmes was definitely bulkier in the chest and shoulders against Holyfield and Mercer,than against Tyson. :think

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

One more for comparison:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

At his peak:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


The excess mass made him a little slower against Holyfield and Mercer. And lets not forget when he was at his best he weighed in around 212Ibs. So he was even lighter.

[Canibus81]

You've pretty much agreed with me on this issue. Thanks for the pics.

[lefthook31]

With historically I mean that, when you throw in all contenders from all eras he would be a fringe contender. At best.

The 90s overall are a better era than the 80s with it's fat, drugged, unmotivated, underachieving hws.
Whats worse coming into a fight in great shape but having no skills or coming into a fight with good overall skills but in not so great shape? Meaning what good is being in shape if you have no skills? You'll just look better getting knocked out?
And really what fighters of the 90's were in great shape all the time?
And by 90's I specifically refer to the mid 90's and up. Theres a big difference between just the early and mid 90's fighters in my opinion. Oliver Mcall, Frank Bruno, were 80's fighters for the most part. As someone said the lightbulb didnt turn off when the clock struck 1990. It was by mid 94-95 that the better technically skilled guys were replaced by the one dimensional statues. The Rahman, Savarese, Briggs, Izon, Grant types.

BTW Tua was fat slob, Rahman was probably the biggest unmotivated lazy ass, and Golota was so mentally weak he could never win any fight of merit.
You want to tell me a guy like Mike Grant had better boxing skills than Tony Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas?
Theres a reason Holmes, Witherspoon, Tyson, Foreman, and Holyfield all had success through the mid 90's, and it wasnt because they were defying the laws of ageing.

[bodhi]

They were underachieveing because Tyson beat most of them, that's why. None of them came in out of shape when fighting Tyson, NONE. And the 80's had way more talented heavyweights than the 90's did. Great ameuter credentials, and loads of athletic prowess.

Yeah, it's all about Tyson :-(

[lefthook31]

Holmes definitely had more time to tune up after Tyson, but still Tyson knocked him out in four rounds, which still stands on its own as a very impressive win. I dont think the outcome would have been any different if you switched the versions of Holmes that fought Holy and Tyson. Tyson at that time was just too fast and too dialed in.

[My2Sense]

They were underachieveing because Tyson beat most of them, that's why.

No, many of them were underachieving because of losses they'd had even before Tyson fought them.

[My2Sense]

there you go, you said it yourself. if douglas was active. douglas quit boxing for 6 years after holyfield koed him. he became a non-factor.

So you agree with my point that beating Douglas would've been meaningful for Tyson if it could've happened right after he lost the title to Holyfield, correct?

[lefthook31]

So you agree with my point that beating Douglas would've been meaningful for Tyson if it could've happened right after he lost the title to Holyfield, correct?
Ill answer for him. Historically yes, but not as much as you seem to think.
At that time, very little given the circumstances.

[Canibus81]

No, many of them were underachieving because of losses they'd had even before Tyson fought them.

Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Micheal Spinks(who's already an ATG), Pinklon Thomas, Tubbs all would be better and ranked higher if it weren't for Tyson because all had tremedous talent. The whole point I'm trying to make is he was beating everyone at that time so covincingly that people like you wrote the victories off. And all of those fighter mentioned above were in the prime of their careers, came terrifc shape and determined to win when Tyson fought them

[Flea Man]

I don't think anyone 'writes off' some of Tysons best victories.

When ranking him against Holyfield however it's: 'one man destroyed them, one man beat some of them convincingly on points. One man proved his longevity more.'

Who d'ya like?

Personally I have Holyfield above at Heavy but can see the case for Tyson.

Actually preparing a little piece called 'Holyfields Legacy' where I am trying to rebuff some of the criticisms aimed at him. I think some are there to be made, but when being compared to a fighter who was much more flawed in Tyson (not as his peak, this is after all a debate about their 'all-time' standings)

[lefthook31]

I don't think anyone 'writes off' some of Tysons best victories.

When ranking him against Holyfield however it's: 'one man destroyed them, one man beat some of them convincingly on points. One man proved his longevity more.'

Who d'ya like?

Personally I have Holyfield above at Heavy but can see the case for Tyson.

Actually preparing a little piece called 'Holyfields Legacy' where I am trying to rebuff some of the criticisms aimed at him. I think some are there to be made, but when being compared to a fighter who was much more flawed in Tyson (not as his peak, this is after all a debate about their 'all-time' standings)
Right because they had different styles and physical strengths too.
Tyson blew guys away and Holyfield broke guys down. Holyfield certainly had to work harder, and like you said his longevity and mental toughness has to put him above Tyson all time, but Tyson is certainly a great fighter in my book. He was one of the most unique controlled brawlers Ive ever seen when he had the whole Cus D Amato Kevin Rooney system clicking.

[My2Sense]

Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Micheal Spinks(who's already an ATG), Pinklon Thomas, Tubbs all would be better and ranked higher if it weren't for Tyson because all had tremedous talent.

No, most of them wouldn't, because of other losses or shortcomings that happened either before and/or after the fights with Tyson. Simply being talented doesn't warrant a higher ranking.


The whole point I'm trying to make is he was beating everyone at that time so covincingly that people like you wrote the victories off.

Which is a questionable point at best, as it fails to address the prior losses or other circumstances around some of those fighters that were there even before Tyson entered the picture.


And all of those fighter mentioned above were in the prime of their careers, came terrifc shape and determined to win when Tyson fought them

No, all of them weren't. Thomas had already suffered his embarrassing upset loss to Berbick and looked unimpressive in his comeback fight against Hosea, and Spinks and Tubbs each weighed in about 10 pounds over their ideal weights. You'd have a better case for arguing Tyson was at his best against Douglas than those guys were against Tyson.

[Canibus81]

No, most of them wouldn't, because of other losses or shortcomings that happened either before and/or after the fights with Tyson. Simply being talented doesn't warrant a higher ranking.




Which is a questionable point at best, as it fails to address the prior losses or other circumstances around some of those fighters that were there even before Tyson entered the picture.




No, all of them weren't. Thomas had already suffered his embarrassing upset loss to Berbick and looked unimpressive in his comeback fight against Hosea, and Spinks and Tubbs each weighed in about 10 pounds over their ideal weights. You'd have a better case for arguing Tyson was at his best against Douglas than those guys were against Tyson.


Spinks body already grew into that weight, he already was at heavyweight for 3 yrs., so I don't know what your talking about.(unless your trying to tell me he didn't come in shape when him and Tyson fought:roll:) Thomas didn't have Dundee when he loss to Berbick but he did when he fought Tyson, and Thomas showed up like he did when he beat Witherspoon. Now your are right that some of them didn't show up to fight at times, but you can say that about any fighter that his great ability.(you can compsensate no coming in 100& with good boxing ability, than coming in shape with no skills) And Tubbs was always a big guy, with not a great lookin body. His speed was tremedous, even at a mere 240Ibs. He looked great when he fought Tyson, before he got caught, and would of beat most fighters that night.(infact a shot Tubbs outboxed Riddick Bowe who than went on to become heavyweight champion)

As for Tucker and Biggs, neither one of them loss prior to fighting Tyson, and Tucker had stopped and in shape Douglas, even lighter than the one Tyson fought. But yea your right, These guys were underacheivers.

[bodhi]

I nearly forgot to answer you. Sorry :oops:

Whats worse coming into a fight in great shape but having no skills or coming into a fight with good overall skills but in not so great shape? Meaning what good is being in shape if you have no skills? You'll just look better getting knocked out?

Well, you are talking as if the 90s fighter would have no skill. That´s not true. In my oppinion aside from the very top the talent pool of every decade is very similar. Same with the 80s and 90s. The talent pool is very similar with, perhaps, a slight edge for the 80s.
BUT the difference is the 80s overall just showed less motivation and dedication and thus underachieved. While ht 90s showed both and even so they may have been a bit less talented they just were better.
On top of that, on the very top the 90s were better: Prime Lewis, Bowe and hw Holyfield, a still very good Tyson, rising Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko tops Prime Holmes and Tyson, Witherspoon and fading 70s´ fighters like Shavers.
Just my oppinion.


And really what fighters of the 90's were in great shape all the time?
And by 90's I specifically refer to the mid 90's and up. Theres a big difference between just the early and mid 90's fighters in my opinion. Oliver Mcall, Frank Bruno, were 80's fighters for the most part. As someone said the lightbulb didnt turn off when the clock struck 1990. It was by mid 94-95 that the better technically skilled guys were replaced by the one dimensional statues. The Rahman, Savarese, Briggs, Izon, Grant types.

I never said the 90s were in great shape all the time. But on average in better shape than the 80s hws.
I agree and disagree. Many 80s fighters continued in the 90s and with some success but that just adds to the 90s and not the 80s.
Aside from Rahman those guys weren´t the cremé delá cremé of the 90s but at best contenders and most of the time fringe contenders and gate keepers.


BTW Tua was fat slob, Rahman was probably the biggest unmotivated lazy ass, and Golota was so mentally weak he could never win any fight of merit.

I agree, also I think you sell Rahman a bit short.


You want to tell me a guy like Mike Grant had better boxing skills than Tony Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas?

I wouldn´t compare Grant grant to Tubbs and Thomas. Those played a similar role that Tyson and the late 90s Klitschkos played.


Theres a reason Holmes, Witherspoon, Tyson, Foreman, and Holyfield all had success through the mid 90's, and it wasnt because they were defying the laws of ageing.

Well, Holyfield is a 90s hw not a 80s hw. Tyson is as much a 90s fighter as he is a 80s fighter.
That leaves you with Holmes, Witherspoon and Foreman. All of them had some good fights in the 90s but that´s it. Foreman actually is the only one had real success and just after getting whooped his arse until the knockout. The rest of his career in the 90s consists of stifs and gifts. Still respect to all of these fighters but using their "success" to demonstrate the supremacy of the 80s over the 90s hws just doesn´t work out.


On a sidenote:
I have the impression you grew up with the 80s fighters so I assume you have some bias towards them. Am I right? Nothing bad about it. I have some bias towards the 30s fighters - although I didn´t grow up with them :lol:

[lefthook31]

Nah just feel the 80's guys were better overall equipped fighters. Its like they stopped teaching the mid 90s guys certain aspects of the game, specifically infighting and movement.
Tyson started his pro career in 85 and had something like 36 fights before 1990. I would say he was an 80's fighter.
Holyfield was also a cruiser in the 80's and did "most" of his best work pre 95 as a heavyweight.
Like I said I think the transition was officially made around 95 with the new generation and the olympic guys Izon, Maskaev, Tua etc.
You started to see less emphasis on movement and infighting and almost all the guys fought in a somewhat one dimensional flat footed plodding manner, give or take a couple.
You almost forget guys like James Douglas Tony Tucker, and Tyrell Biggs were all in that 6'4-6'5 range by the way they moved around the ring and you didnt see those guys weighing in for fights in the 250 range either which suggests maybe the 90's guys werent as well conditioned as they could have been because of their fighting style.

[TIGEREDGE]

sure. tysons reign from 86-90 was arguably the most impressive in history. definitely the most exciting, he never once came to close to getting beat by anyone. he just destroyed guys. holyfield was very inconsitent

[bodhi]

Nah just feel the 80's guys were better overall equipped fighters. Its like they stopped teaching the mid 90s guys certain aspects of the game, specifically infighting and movement.
Tyson started his pro career in 85 and had something like 36 fights before 1990. I would say he was an 80's fighter.

Most of those 36 fighters were stiffs on his way up. I´d say he fought as many (fringe) contenders in the 90s than in the 80s.


Holyfield was also a cruiser in the 80's and did "most" of his best work pre 95 as a heavyweight.

Yeah, Holy was a cruiser in the 80s, we are talking hws. And all of his hw work was done in the 90s.


Like I said I think the transition was officially made around 95 with the new generation and the olympic guys Izon, Maskaev, Tua etc.

Officially? You mean some official guy turned up in 95 and said "the 80s are over, now the 90s start".? :lol:

The early 90s are still 90s and not the 80s. And I disagree that the talent level dropped. See post #151 for my oppinion on that.


You started to see less emphasis on movement and infighting and almost all the guys fought in a somewhat one dimensional flat footed plodding manner, give or take a couple.

Less infighting is true. But less movement? Come on ... Lewis, Vitali, Wlad, Byrd, Holyfield, shall I go on? There were plenty of guys with good movement. Infighting became more and more obsolet because more and more bigger fighters turned up who fought similar to Lewis, meaning they used their size to keep their opponent at bay and when they come into range tied them up. That does not make them worse. They just used the tools they had at hands.


You almost forget guys like James Douglas Tony Tucker, and Tyrell Biggs were all in that 6'4-6'5 range by the way they moved around the ring and you didnt see those guys weighing in for fights in the 250 range either which suggests maybe the 90's guys werent as well conditioned as they could have been because of their fighting style.

Sorry but that part just shows how biased you are. The 80s were all big and good movers while the 90s fighters were all just plodding. That´s just not true.


sure. tysons reign from 86-90 was arguably the most impressive in history. definitely the most exciting, he never once came to close to getting beat by anyone. he just destroyed guys. holyfield was very inconsitent

Well, it´s the resume and longevity of Holyfield against the dominance of Tyson. Tyson was only consistent in the 80s but not so much in the 90s, overall not enough to make a difference imo.
Personally, I take Holyfield.

[HomicideHenry]

H2H Holyfield beat Tyson. And really, H2H Holyfield could have beaten the same men Tyson did. Holyfield was the greatest Cruiserweight of all time, and then became a 4x HW champion as well. There is no comparison, this is a no contest. Holyfield PWNS Tyson.

[lefthook31]

Most of those 36 fighters were stiffs on his way up. I´d say he fought as many (fringe) contenders in the 90s than in the 80s.
Your calling me biased? He unified all three titles separately in the 80's! :lol:



Yeah, Holy was a cruiser in the 80s, we are talking hws. And all of his hw work was done in the 90s.

THats why I said around mid 94-95 the transition was complete



Officially? You mean some official guy turned up in 95 and said "the 80s are over, now the 90s start".? :lol:

The early 90s are still 90s and not the 80s. And I disagree that the talent level dropped. See post #151 for my oppinion on that.

Yes I pointed that out, but personally I see a big difference from the two. It was a real transition starting in the early part of the 90's. By mid 94-95 you could see a very realistic style change in the top contenders which has carried on and gotten to todays horrid state.



Less infighting is true. But less movement? Come on ... Lewis, Vitali, Wlad, Byrd, Holyfield, shall I go on? There were plenty of guys with good movement. Infighting became more and more obsolet because more and more bigger fighters turned up who fought similar to Lewis, meaning they used their size to keep their opponent at bay and when they come into range tied them up. That does not make them worse. They just used the tools they had at hands.

Again your putting Holyfield in a place I dont have him. Would you agree even Holyfield was less of a mover by the mid 90's because of his age? Wlad and Vitali were pretty much a non factor until the late 90's and more of a world class factor since 2000 till now. I believe they turned pro in 96-97?? I said there was exceptions to the rule, Byrd and Lewis were two of them with Lewis being the dominant force of that time period because of his complete skillset.



Sorry but that part just shows how biased you are. The 80s were all big and good movers while the 90s fighters were all just plodding. That´s just not true.


Its my opinion, it has nothing to do with me trying to downplay anyones accomplishments, just a stylistic change I saw happen and why I see one generation as better than the other. I believe overall the guys that came into contention around 95-2000 were less coordinated and less equipped overall as fighters. They fought slower, more flat footed and showed little dimension to their game.



Well, it´s the resume and longevity of Holyfield against the dominance of Tyson. Tyson was only consistent in the 80s but not so much in the 90s, overall not enough to make a difference imo.
Personally, I take Holyfield.


Agree with this.

[Hookie]

sure. tysons reign from 86-90 was arguably the most impressive in history. definitely the most exciting, he never once came to close to getting beat by anyone. he just destroyed guys. holyfield was very inconsitent

Holyfield wasn't inconsistent until his 30's. Hell, he was undefeated from late '84 to late '92. Tyson lost for the first time in '90 at age 23.

Both men had 10 World Title fight wins before their first defeat...

Holyfield was the Undisputed CW and HW Champ. He was 6-0 (5) in CW World Title fights and 4-0 (2) in HW World Title fights before losing his first pro fight. During this time he went 28-0 (22) overall and had wins over Hall of Famers Qawi (W15 and KO4), Foreman (W12), and Holmes (W12).

Tyson was the Undisputed HW Champ. He was 10-0 (8) in HW World Title fights before losing his first pro fight. During this time he went 37-0 (33) overall and had wins over Hall of Famers M. Spinks (KO1) and Holmes (KO4).

Holyfield=inconsistent... really???

Keep in mind that Holyfield won a World Title in his 12th pro fight vs. Hall of Famer Dwight Qawi. Tyson fought more often but vs. lower level fighters on his way up.

Both had great resumes during this period... I just think Holyfield was always a little better than Tyson... most people just didn't realize it at the time.

[bodhi]

Your calling me biased? He unified all three titles separately in the 80's! :lol:

Which is a very good achievement! I would never deny this.


THats why I said around mid 94-95 the transition was complete


Yes I pointed that out, but personally I see a big difference from the two. It was a real transition starting in the early part of the 90's. By mid 94-95 you could see a very realistic style change in the top contenders which has carried on and gotten to todays horrid state.

You have a point there. But read what I wrote earlier. The change in style doesn´t mean the new crop was worse like you seem to think. It´s just a different style due to more big heavyweights emerging who tend to tie you up on the inside instead of infighting.
However that doesn´t change the fact that the 90s start in 1990 and not in 1996.



Again your putting Holyfield in a place I dont have him. Would you agree even Holyfield was less of a mover by the mid 90's because of his age? Wlad and Vitali were pretty much a non factor until the late 90's and more of a world class factor since 2000 till now. I believe they turned pro in 96-97?? I said there was exceptions to the rule, Byrd and Lewis were two of them with Lewis being the dominant force of that time period because of his complete skillset.

Well, that´s your oppinion. I beg to differ. Holyfield fought more in the 90s than the 80s. So he is at least as much of a 90s fighter as a 80s fighter.
Yeah, Holy moved less in the second half of the 90s but does that neglect his skills of the first half? Aside he still moved pretty well when he wanted despite his age.
The Klitchkos where on the rise in the late 90s. That´s what I wrote. They started to becoming contenders and Vitali even winning a belt in the 90s.
So, according to you we have at least 5 exceptions to the rule then?



Its my opinion, it has nothing to do with me trying to downplay anyones accomplishments, just a stylistic change I saw happen and why I see one generation as better than the other. I believe overall the guys that came into contention around 95-2000 were less coordinated and less equipped overall as fighters. They fought slower, more flat footed and showed little dimension to their game.

That´s something I don´t agree with. There was a new breed of fighters coming up, yeah. They fought a bit different than the fighters before them, yeah. They neglected some parts of the game and chose other parts over those, yeah. but they weren´t any worse than the fighters before them.
Actually, I don´t think the average talent nowadays is worse than in the 70s. At the very top, there is a difference - and it´s not that small - but on the contender, fringe contender level the difference is marginal if it even exists.

[Stevie G]

In Tyson's favour,there may be the common opponent syndrome. Holyfield posted clear,yet messy wins over veteran versions of Holmes and Foreman. Tyson destroyed Holmes,and in my opinion would have done the same to a 42 year old Foreman. I'm equally convinced,however that prime for prime Holyfied would still have beaten Tyson.

[lefthook31]

You have a point there. But read what I wrote earlier. The change in style doesn´t mean the new crop was worse like you seem to think. It´s just a different style due to more big heavyweights emerging who tend to tie you up on the inside instead of infighting.
However that doesn´t change the fact that the 90s start in 1990 and not in 1996.


Whats more effective? Infighting is another dimension to a boxers offensive skillset, tieing up is not.


Well, that´s your oppinion. I beg to differ. Holyfield fought more in the 90s than the 80s. So he is at least as much of a 90s fighter as a 80s fighter.
Yeah, Holy moved less in the second half of the 90s but does that neglect his skills of the first half? Aside he still moved pretty well when he wanted despite his age.
The Klitchkos where on the rise in the late 90s. That´s what I wrote. They started to becoming contenders and Vitali even winning a belt in the 90s.
So, according to you we have at least 5 exceptions to the rule then?


The Klitschkos were on the rise but they were not in the main mix. The main contenders around this period I am referring to, who were regularly showcased on HBO/Showtime against fellow contenders, and facing the then champion Lennox Lewis and fighting in the top ten were guys like
Obed Sullivan, Mike Grant, David Tua, David Izon, Oleg Maskaev, Lou Savarese, Danell Nicholson, Shannon Briggs, Andrew Golota, John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, and Hasim Rahman, and Larry Donald. The Klitschkos were non factors fighting more obscure lower tiered opponents in Europe. Vitali won his WBO title against Obed Sullivan about 20 days before 2000. :D Up until that point with exception to maybe Herbie Hide, he fought noone of merit.

[bodhi]

Whats more effective? Infighting is another dimension to a boxers offensive skillset, tieing up is not.

Not right. For Wlad tieing you up is better. He is a long range fighter and tires you uot by tieing you up and lean on you - Valuev does similar things. You maybe prefer infighting but that does not mean it´s better.


The Klitschkos were on the rise but they were not in the main mix. The main contenders around this period I am referring to, who were regularly showcased on HBO/Showtime against fellow contenders, and facing the then champion Lennox Lewis and fighting in the top ten were guys like
Obed Sullivan, Mike Grant, David Tua, David Izon, Oleg Maskaev, Lou Savarese, Danell Nicholson, Shannon Briggs, Andrew Golota, John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, and Hasim Rahman, and Larry Donald. The Klitschkos were non factors fighting more obscure lower tiered opponents in Europe. Vitali won his WBO title against Obed Sullivan about 20 days before 2000. :D Up until that point with exception to maybe Herbie Hide, he fought noone of merit.

Read what I wrote "the rising Klitschkos". And no beeing televised on HBO/Showtime does not mean you are a contender while beeing not means you are not one. America is not the only nation on this planet. Oh, and I would add Schulz for Wlad on your "fighters with merits the Klitschkos fought" list.

Btw. half of those guys you mentioned have actually decent movement :lol:

[lefthook31]

Not right. For Wlad tieing you up is better. He is a long range fighter and tires you uot by tieing you up and lean on you - Valuev does similar things. You maybe prefer infighting but that does not mean it´s better.


Still disagree and part of my main point. What happens when an opponent takes away the distance? What happens when Wlad was forced to fight inside? This is what Im referring to. You saw what happened, he was lost and got his butt kicked by a 24-13 fighter and then two more times.

Read what I wrote "the rising Klitschkos". And no beeing televised on HBO/Showtime does not mean you are a contender while beeing not means you are not one. America is not the only nation on this planet. Oh, and I would add Schulz for Wlad on your "fighters with merits the Klitschkos fought" list.


I didnt say that or mean that, but the guys who were ranked and in the fighting mix of the WBC WBA and IBF. Were talking about the challengers to the title, the fighters that Lennox Lewis primarily faced. Wasnt the start of this debate comparing the fighters that Tyson and Lewis banged out their legacies on?

[bodhi]

Still disagree and part of my main point. What happens when an opponent takes away the distance? What happens when Wlad was forced to fight inside? This is what Im referring to. You saw what happened, he was lost and got his butt kicked by a 24-13 fighter and then two more times.

Have you seen those three times? Against Purrity Wlad had announced his first twelve rounder. Purrity is known for his good stamina, chin and decent power. Wlad never wenter beyond 8 rounds and that only once. Additionally he fought at least once a month then. That was bad match-making to begin with. What happened in that fight was Wlad using Ross as a punching bag until he ran out of gas and Purrity taking advantage of that. Has nothing to do with the infighting skills of "the boss" - or Wlad´s chin.
Similar his fight with Brewster. Lamon was a punching bag for Wlad in the early rounds. Brewster just started to land when Wlad gassed. Here also: Wlad didn´t get beaten by Brwester because of his infighting skills but because he was wrong conditioned by his trainer.
Sanders blitzed him. The only fight where you could say his chin betrayed him. But even there the punch came from the outside not the inside.

btw. Brewster, Sanders and Purrity are fighters of the second half of the 90s or 00s. According to you those fighters can´t infight :hey



I didnt say that or mean that, but the guys who were ranked and in the fighting mix of the WBC WBA and IBF. Were talking about the challengers to the title, the fighters that Lennox Lewis primarily faced. Wasnt the start of this debate comparing the fighters that Tyson and Lewis banged out their legacies on?

No it actually was about Tyson and Holyfield. Got a bit out of hand :lol:

This point was btw. about you writing there guys in the second half of the 90s couldn´t move and infight.

[lefthook31]

So Wlad should get a pass for losing in his first 12 round fight because it was his first time and a bad style matchup?:lol: And he should get a pass for gassing out against Brewster? The reason he gassed is because he couldnt adjust, he couldnt move, he couldnt fight on the inside or tie up and take the time he needed to recoup.
It has everything with Wlad showing how one dimensional he was at that time and the main point Im making about alot of these other fighters. Your making excuses by saying "bum rushed" "ran out of gas" and "blitzed". The ability to deal with these type of offensive threats at any stage of a fight makes a more well rounded fighter especially a championship level one. Your making my point. A good portion of the 80's fighters were prepared to adjust by knowing another aspect of boxing. Infighting, moving, etc. You saw less and less of that and more one dimensional fighters, and mostly plodders at the world class level.
BTW Brewster Sanders and Purrity just used basic brawling to stop Wlad in their respective fights.

Ill just add again that its easier to fight a guy who stands in front of you than it is a guy who can move fight inside and out. The debate is switching from Lewis to Holyfield to Tyson to now Klitschko which is getting confusing.
My main point which Im sticking by is that the fighters of the mid 90s showed less dimension to their game. They had more physical size, but most of them didnt use it their advantage like Lewis learned and Wlad did as well later down the line. They were slower, and didnt offer as diverse of a stylistic challenge to the then dominating champion Lennox Lewis in my opinion, and thats why I believe the 80's challengers specifically for a champion of Mike Tysons attributes offered a more diverse and stiffer challenge stylistically for him and any champion for that matter. Just look at who gave Lewis the most problems in his career.

[bodhi]

So Wlad should get a pass for losing in his first 12 round fight because it was his first time?:lol: And he should get a pass for gassing out against Brewster? The reason he gassed is because he couldnt adjust, he couldnt move, he couldnt fight on the inside or tie up and take the time he needed to recoup.
It has everything with Wlad showing how one dimensional he was at that time and the main point Im making about alot of these other fighters. Your making excuses by saying "bum rushed" "ran out of gas" and "blitzed". The ability to deal with these type of offensive threats at any stage of a fight makes a more well rounded fighter especially a championship level one. Your making my point. A good portion of the 80's fighters were prepared to adjust by knowing another aspect of boxing. Infighting, moving, etc. You saw less and less of that and more one dimensional fighters, and mostly plodders at the world class level.
BTW Brewster Sanders and Purrity just used basic brawling to stop Wlad in their respective fights.

You don´t get my point at all. I´m not excusing Wlad - well for the first loss I do excuse him partly. But he did not lose to those guys because he can´t infight but because he was wrong conditioned - a fault of his and his trainer - and his subpar chin colliding with the fist of a fighter with speed and power - from longrange.
However, Wlad is pretty one dimensional. As was Frazier. As was Tyson. That does not mean those guys are bad fighters.
Yeah, I agree certain aspects of the game aren´t seen that often today. Because they aren´t needed or they use different tactics. Sorry but most of today´s fighters would have hold their own in the 80s.

[lefthook31]

You don´t get my point at all. I´m not excusing Wlad - well for the first loss I do excuse him partly. But he did not lose to those guys because he can´t infight but because he was wrong conditioned - a fault of his and his trainer - and his subpar chin colliding with the fist of a fighter with speed and power - from longrange.
However, Wlad is pretty one dimensional. As was Frazier. As was Tyson. That does not mean those guys are bad fighters.
Yeah, I agree certain aspects of the game aren´t seen that often today. Because they aren´t needed or they use different tactics. Sorry but most of today´s fighters would have hold their own in the 80s.
Wrongly conditioned or wrongly prepared? Probably both. If you tee off on a guy for 10 rounds and hes still in front of you, something has to be changed. Whether its moving or ad******g your output down to a decision win.
If a guy comes at you and "bum rushes" you and takes away your distance where you like to operate, you have to know how to deal with that, whether by tieing up, stepping to the side, moving or fighting inside.
If you go into a fight against a guy who has a great chin and will most likely be standing at the final bell, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know you need to pace yourself or box and move more at a controlled pace. Im pretty sure Wlad boxed 12 rounds in the gym before that fight as well. Im also pretty confident a fighter who fights monthly is pretty well conditoned as opposed to a fighter who fights every 4 or six months.

If he wasnt prepared by his trainer for it, well thats another point I would make and another reason why I feel the way I do. Its not necessarily only a factor of the fighters abilities, but also because they were never taught, and thats probably the reason why both Wladmir and Lennox Lewis improved so much in other areas of their game once they hooked up with a real teacher.:good

[bodhi]

Ill just add again that its easier to fight a guy who stands in front of you than it is a guy who can move fight inside and out. The debate is switching from Lewis to Holyfield to Tyson to now Klitschko which is getting confusing.

Not necessarily. It´s all a styles thing, there were always long range fighters without much inside game.


My main point which Im sticking by is that the fighters of the mid 90s showed less dimension to their game. They had more physical size, but most of them didnt use it their advantage like Lewis learned and Wlad did as well later down the line. They were slower, and didnt offer as diverse of a stylistic challenge to the then dominating champion Lennox Lewis in my opinion, and thats why I believe the 80's challengers specifically for a champion of Mike Tysons attributes offered a more diverse and stiffer challenge stylistically for him and any champion for that matter. Just look at who gave Lewis the most problems in his career.

I know your point by now. I don´t really disagree with it. I just think that it does not make them worse fighters. And no Tyson´s resume is not better than Lewis´.

Wrongly conditioned or wrongly prepared? Probably both. If you tee off on a guy for 10 rounds and hes still in front of you, something has to be changed. Whether its moving or ad******g your output down to a decision win.
If a guy comes at you and "bum rushes" you and takes away your distance where you like to operate, you have to know how to deal with that, whether by tieing up, stepping to the side, moving or fighting inside.
If you go into a fight against a guy who has a great chin and will most likely be standing at the final bell, it doesnt take a rocket scientist to know you need to pace yourself or box and move more at a controlled pace. Im pretty sure Wlad boxed 12 rounds in the gym before that fight as well. Im also pretty confident a fighter who fights monthly is pretty well conditoned as opposed to a fighter who fights every 4 or six months.

True. But Wlad was inexperienced against Purrity. Like I said it was bad match-making. You don´t put a guy who never went beyond 8 rounds - and this just once, all other fights of him lasted not longer than 6 rounds - against a guy known to last the distance with big hitters. Dumb move. A fighter is trained for the distance he will go in his next fight. Yeah, Wlad will have sparred 12 rounds in the gym. But sparring is something diffrent than actual fighting. A guy who drives a Ferrari can´t win a F1 race. Add to that his high fight frequency, his bad preperation/condition, a not so great chin and his inexperience and you have a loss.Those things happen in boxing. I don´t hold this loss much against him.
Purrity did not "bumrush" Wlad. Additionally Wlad had some infighting skills back then. He threw every punch in the book including uppercuts and short hooks. He also took more risks. He just abondoned this when he took Stewart as his trainer. Who made him an outside and safety first fighter. Watch the fight again. Purrity barely landed a punch until Wlad gassed. He was a punching back. And when he gassed he didn´t know what to do. They weren´t prepared for that. They probably thought that guy is just a stiff like the other guys Wlad fought until then.

Brewster was clearly the fault of him. He thought he would just bomb Brewster out, believed in his own ability to knock everybody out too much and payed the price. He gassed and got KOed. A mistake he never repeated since.

Btw. I´m not some Klitschko fan. I´m German so I followed their careers from their very first televised fights. I know what they are capable of and what not. I rank Wlad on the verge of Top20 and his brother between 25 and 30. That´s fair I think.


If he wasnt prepared by his trainer for it, well thats another point I would make and another reason why I feel the way I do. Its not necessarily only a factor of the fighters abilities, but also because they were never taught, and thats probably the reason why both Wladmir and Lennox Lewis improved so much in other areas of their game once they hooked up with a real teacher.:good

I disagree. Stewart basically took away much of Wlad´s arsenal, dimensions and skill to make him more efficient. Skillwise he actually got worse with Stewart. The trainers now are roughly the same as in the early 90s, late 80s.
Sdunek, the former trainer of Wlad, made nearly 10 fighters to worldchamps, so he isn´t a bad trainer. Him and Wlad just didn´t work out that well.

[lefthook31]

I disagree. Stewart basically took away much of Wlad´s arsenal, dimensions and skill to make him more efficient. Skillwise he actually got worse with Stewart. The trainers now are roughly the same as in the early 90s, late 80s.
Sdunek, the former trainer of Wlad, made nearly 10 fighters to worldchamps, so he isn´t a bad trainer. Him and Wlad just didn´t work out that well.

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this overall. Taking away some of a fighters arsenal is not necessarily a bad thing if he improves in other areas, going back to my point about being more well rounded. Teaching a fighter defense, proper positioning, and fight pace, is just as important than being an offensive fighter, and skillwise he has improved in all those areas. It has nothing to with Sdunek being bad, its just Steward is better overall in my opinion, especially at enhancing a fighters best attributes and keeping them out of harms way of their poor ones.

True. But Wlad was inexperienced against Purrity. Like I said it was bad match-making. You don´t put a guy who never went beyond 8 rounds - and this just once, all other fights of him lasted not longer than 6 rounds - against a guy known to last the distance with big hitters. Dumb move. A fighter is trained for the distance he will go in his next fight. Yeah, Wlad will have sparred 12 rounds in the gym. But sparring is something diffrent than actual fighting. A guy who drives a Ferrari can´t win a F1 race. Add to that his high fight frequency, his bad preperation/condition, a not so great chin and his inexperience and you have a loss.Those things happen in boxing. I don´t hold this loss much against him.

Yes but Wlad wasnt going up against a Ferrari, he was the Ferrari and he was fighting a Ford Truck not a F1 racecar. At that point in his career he was not over his head going against a guy who is just tough but very limited skillwise. It was just a factor of what I said above. You absolutely can prepare for a 12 round fight in the gym.
You want to tell me Hasim Rahman was a better boxer and more prepared to fight Ross Purrity in his 12th pro fight than Wlad? Rahman had never gone past four rounds up until that point.
How about Mike Grant in his 19th pro fight, I think he had gone 8 in a few fights previously but he went 10 with Purrity??


The trainers now are roughly the same as in the early 90s, late 80s

No way. You have a few guys who were assistants to the old school guys like Roach, Brooks, Torrance, Shields, Rooney, etc. Some are good some are not, but most of the old school guys are dead or retired by the mid 90's.

[Maxmomer]

Alright, what exactly could place Tyson above Holyfield?

Dominance at his peak? Better top wins?

Those and also his perceived greater H2H ability in his prime. I rate Tyson as one of the 5 most dangerous HW's of all time.

[bodhi]

You and I are just going to have to disagree on this overall. Taking away some of a fighters arsenal is not necessarily a bad thing if he improves in other areas, going back to my point about being more well rounded. Teaching a fighter defense, proper positioning, and fight pace, is just as important than being an offensive fighter, and skillwise he has improved in all those areas. It has nothing to with Sdunek being bad, its just Steward is better overall in my opinion, especially at enhancing a fighters best attributes and keeping them out of harms way of their poor ones.


Yes but Wlad wasnt going up against a Ferrari, he was the Ferrari and he was fighting a Ford Truck not a F1 racecar. At that point in his career he was not over his head going against a guy who is just tough but very limited skillwise. It was just a factor of what I said above. You absolutely can prepare for a 12 round fight in the gym.
You want to tell me Hasim Rahman was a better boxer and more prepared to fight Ross Purrity in his 12th pro fight than Wlad? Rahman had never gone past four rounds up until that point.
How about Mike Grant in his 19th pro fight, I think he had gone 8 in a few fights previously but he went 10 with Purrity??


No way. You have a few guys who were assistants to the old school guys like Roach, Brooks, Torrance, Shields, Rooney, etc. Some are good some are not, but most of the old school guys are dead or retired by the mid 90's.

I was thinking about just letting it be even in my previous post but it seems I just couldn´t let go :lol:

I can see where you are coming from. You have your points and I agree with some of them. I don´t agree with your basic oppinion. But good effort, you gave me some things to think about :good

[My2Sense]

Spinks body already grew into that weight, he already was at heavyweight for 3 yrs., so I don't know what your talking about.

When had he ever weighed 212 for a fight before?? That was his career high weight, and more than 10 pounds over his ideal weight as a HW.

And Spinks never "grew into" that weight; he had hired Mackie Shilstone to develop a specific diet just to bulk himself up to 200.

(unless your trying to tell me he didn't come in shape when him and Tyson fought:roll:)

Yes, that's what's in question here.

And Tubbs was always a big guy, with not a great lookin body. His speed was tremedous, even at a mere 240Ibs.

It doesn't matter what his speed was at 240; the issue is whether or not his speed was at its best at 240, which it wasn't. He was at his best 10 pounds lighter than that, when he won the title.

He looked great when he fought Tyson, before he got caught, and would of beat most fighters that night.

There's nothing to prove he would've beat "most fighters" even on his best night when he weighed around 230, let along a couple years later when weighing 10 pounds heavier than that.


(infact a shot Tubbs outboxed Riddick Bowe who than went on to become heavyweight champion)


I thought you said you only concern yourself with what official decisions say?
Record says he didn't, so as far i'm concerned he still loss.
:think

[AMBOY]

Between 1986 - 1989 holyfield would not of stood a chance, he got mike at the right time.

[bodhi]

Between 1986 - 1989 holyfield would not of stood a chance, he got mike at the right time.

Read the thread title again, fanboy.

[AMBOY]

Read the thread title again, fanboy.

Tyson above anyone, can it be justified, it dont matter, Tyson was the best ever, and thats biggest fanboy, and dont bother replying youve wasted to much of my time already.

[My2Sense]

Between 1986 - 1989 holyfield would not of stood a chance, he got mike at the right time.

That's why Mike opened as a 25-1 favorite, right?

:nut


Tyson above anyone, can it be justified, ...

How?

[PetethePrince]

Tyson above anyone, can it be justified, it dont matter, Tyson was the best ever, and thats biggest fanboy, and dont bother replying youve wasted to much of my time already.

I think you would like some of this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[AMBOY]

Holy shit, didn't know i'd stumbled upon Holyfields unofficial website, i'll leave you all to it..:tong:tong

[AMBOY]

I think you would like some of this...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

You Gotta love the guy, and all the haters on here deep down WISH they could somehow be a little like Mike.. :hi:

[Flea Man]

AMBOY=Shite poster

[My2Sense]

Holy shit, didn't know i'd stumbled upon Holyfields unofficial website, ...

You didn't. You stumbled onto a website that has a high regard for honesty and facts. Sorry that it doesn't suit your purpose.

[lefthook31]

You didn't. You stumbled onto a website that has a high regard for honesty and facts. Sorry that it doesn't suit your purpose.
:lol: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

[My2Sense]

:lol: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

No, it isn't.

[Flea Man]

Don't get it, M2S deals in facts and figures :lol:

[lefthook31]

Don't get it, M2S deals in facts and figures :lol:
That works great in accounting but boxing takes a bit more insight.

[AMBOY]

Don't get it, M2S deals in facts and figures :lol:
Get from up his arse you maggot, and whats the laughing face all about, you aint one bit funny.

[Flea Man]

LH; odd thing to say. He's a good poster.

AMBOY: Still offering nothing to the board I see.

[The Mongoose]

. Im pretty sure Wlad boxed 12 rounds in the gym before that fight as well. Im also pretty confident a fighter who fights monthly is pretty well conditoned as opposed to a fighter who fights every 4 or six months.

No, according to Steward he was surprised to discover that Wlad did very little to no sparring when he took over as trainer, and this was one of the first major corrections he made to his routine. He said Wlad did do lots of conditioning training prior but that's not the same as actually working in the ring.


"The next thing was just to work on executing his punches with the shortest distance and the least amount of movement. Then a third thing we started doing, which he didn’t do so much in the beginning, was to spar a lot. Basically, with his program, they did not do a lot of boxing. They did a lot of exercises, like gymnastics stuff and everything—and that’s what they (the Klitschkos) said their program largely consisted of. So I said, “I believe you need to spar a lot.”, because before that, the exercise routine they had involved a lot of running, they would throw a ball up against the wall the turn around, catch it, and throw it again—it was a lot of conditioning things, and not so much sparring. I said, “I want you to spar more and more and more, and you will feel more comfortable after spending more time in the ring because this is your work shop.” You almost develop a certain sense of when your back will touch the ropes, and that’s why you never saw him with his back on the ropes, if you notice, in all of his fights. Even though he’s a power guy and most power men have to go back to the ropes in order to force opponents back in or in order to set them up to the body or something—you never, never see him (or Lennox or my fighters) with their backs to the ropes."

[lefthook31]

No, according to Steward he was surprised to discover that Wlad did very little to no sparring when he took over as trainer, and this was one of the first major corrections he made to his routine. He said Wlad did do lots of conditioning training prior but that won't prepare you for a long distance fight like sparring rounds will.
I know he said that, but that doesnt mean he didnt box 12 rounds ever before that fight, it just means he increased his sparring in training and a factor I pointed out in a previous post when he made the switch to Steward.
I never understood fighters who dont spar a lot in preparation for a fight. Its the best way to get your timing and fight condition dialed in.

[lefthook31]

They did a lot of exercises, like gymnastics stuff and everything—and that’s what they (the Klitschkos) said their program largely consisted of


:huh I wonder how gymnastics helped with boxing?? Maybe it helped him hit the canvas a little softer?

[AMBOY]

LH; odd thing to say. He's a good poster.

AMBOY: Still offering nothing to the board I see.

In 20, 30 years time Mikes name will still be mentioned as one of the all time greats, not Holyfield, there was a thing called the TYSON ERA, and thats what its about, never will you hear of the holyfield era as there was and never will be one.

[lefthook31]

In 20, 30 years time Mikes name will still be mentioned as one of the all time greats, not Holyfield, there was a thing called the TYSON ERA, and thats what its about, never will you hear of the holyfield era as there was and never will be one.
I think Tyson is often underated on this forum, but your statement about Holyfield is ridiculous. He will never be forgotten, and will always be ranked above Tyson for his accomplishments.

[bodhi]

In 20, 30 years time Mikes name will still be mentioned as one of the all time greats, not Holyfield, there was a thing called the TYSON ERA, and thats what its about, never will you hear of the holyfield era as there was and never will be one.

Go back to the general forum, that´s where the hardcore fanboys are supposed to be. :hi:

[Flea Man]

Go back to the general forum, that´s where the hardcore fanboys are supposed to be. :hi:

:lol::good

[Kalasinn]

I think Tyson is often underated on this forum, but your statement about Holyfield is ridiculous. He will never be forgotten, and will always be ranked above Tyson for his accomplishments.

I agree with lefthook and that guy really is a deluded fanboy, however I can't help thinking he might be a troll considering the ludicrous nature of his comments.

[Russell]

Sweet baby Jesus, this thread is still going? :lol::lol:

[My2Sense]

That works great in accounting but boxing takes a bit more insight.

No, that's just your excuse perpetuating your ridiculous spin-jobs in place of truth.

It also completely undermines your "pot kettle black" comment.

[lefthook31]

No, that's just your excuse perpetuating your ridiculous spin-jobs in place of truth.

It also completely undermines your "pot kettle black" comment.
Yeah right.. :tired

[My2Sense]

Yeah right.. :tired

Yes, it is right.

Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spin

[lefthook31]

Yes, it is right.

Reality >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spin
Sometimes perception is not reality grasshopper, goes both ways...