How do u rank Holyfields Wins over Tyson

[Nigel_Benn]

He became champion for the 3rd time against all the odds, he was 34 and many believed shot and war torn yet he beat Tyson who many despite the loss to Douglas still believed was invincible,Would Evander have had a great legacy without the Tyson wins?

[fists of fury]

He became champion for the 3rd time against all the odds, he was 34 and many believed shot and war torn yet he beat Tyson who many despite the loss to Douglas still believed was invincible,Would Evander have had a great legacy without the Tyson wins?

It was a massive career boost for Holyfield. Without the wins, he'd struggle for ATG status, imo.

[Ezzard]

Great wins that prove Holyfield was a great fighter. Tyson was a big favourite. The apologists will be out but Holyfoeld swapped palces with Tyson on the ATG lists with those wins.

[abraq]

The Tyson wins did a lot for Holyfield's reputation. From what he accomplished aside from Tyson, Holyfield would still be thought of highly.

Still, I would say that the Tyson wins did a lot for him.

[JohnThomas1]

Great wins that prove Holyfield was a great fighter. Tyson was a big favourite. The apologists will be out but Holyfoeld swapped palces with Tyson on the ATG lists with those wins.

Totally agree. I actually think Holyfield beat a better Tyson than Buster did.

[Dempsey1238]

Seeing Tyson Holyfiled II, always made me hungry.


Yeah they were a boost for Evander, shortly after that, they were comparing Holyfiled with the likes of Ali, Louis, Dempsey, Holmes and Marciano.

[DamonD]

I remember Ring Magazine in 1998 ranked him as the #3 HW ATG.

As others have said, the wins are huge for Holyfield. What was seen as a, generally, downward slide after Bowe II was abruptly halted with Holyfield's dominanting performance.

[mr. magoo]

Funny, if tyson had destroyed holyfield, he'd get no credit.

Well, he seemed to get an aweful lot of credit for beating an aging Bruno, whom he had already smoked years earlier, plus a great deal of appraisal for taking a win over Seldon, who dropped without even being hit. In fact, he was so highly regarded for these comeback wins that he was actually favored by most to beat Holyfield.

[ripcity]

Going into their first fight I felt Tyson was way past his prime and Holyfield was more past his prime than Tyson was. Useing this reasoning I picked Tyson to win. The wins deffently boasted Holyfield's career. I would pick a prime Tyson to beat a prime Holyfield.

[mr. magoo]

Going into their first fight I felt Tyson was way past his prime and Holyfield was more past his prime than Tyson was. Useing this reasoning I picked Tyson to win. The wins deffently boasted Holyfield's career. I would pick a prime Tyson to beat a prime Holyfield.

I'm not sure who I'd pick between prime versions of these guys, but I fully concur that both were years past their best. Tyson was at his peak around 1988 and Holyfield at his in maybe 1990. This would have been the time to see them fight. The 4 year layoff, change in managment, and beating from Buster Douglas caused a great decline in Tyson. Even a 1991 Tyson was showing signs of deterioration against Razor Ruddock, whom he otherwise might have destroyed 3 years earlier. Holyfield was 34 years old by 1996, fighting less frequently and had on and off health problems. If anyone asks me, there was a bit too much made out of these fights by the public and media.

I also remember listening to what my friends and acquaintences were saying about Tyson during his prison sentence, " he's gonna come back badder than ever, and wipe the floor with everybody out there." I often chuckled at these comments, and went about my business. I knew he was basically finished, and that the layoff would take its toll. upon losing to Douglas and struggling with Ruddock he lost what was probably his greatest asset, which was the element of intimidation. Young fighters coming up knew he was beatable and the 4 year hiatus from the ring only amplified it. Don King had the less knowledgable fooled into thinking that Tyson had picked up where he left off with his comeback fights against McNeeley, Mathis, Seldon, and Bruno. Both Seldon and Bruno were strategically steared into title postions by King presumably for the purpose of being easy prey for Tyson to regain two belts. I remember around 1994 Larry Merchant saying what the hell are Seldon and Tucker doing fighting for a world title? Tucker was shot and Seldon was by no means a #1 quality contender. The same could be said for Bruno.

[ironchamp]

Totally agree. I actually think Holyfield beat a better Tyson than Buster did.

Really, Tyson before prison was far more fluid in his movements and IMO had better speed.


Remember Magoo:

Bruno had a world title because Lennox Lewis lost it to McCall. Bruno then beat McCall taking the title. Thing is King can only do so much; you can take a horse to the waterhole but...

[prime]

Holy wouldn't have won had he not most likely 'roided up.

[Vanboxingfan]

funny about this fight I actually picked Holyfield to beat Tyson based on the BS opposition Tyson was fighting leading up to this fight. Head to head in their primes? Tough choice but if pressed I'd pick Tyson.

[mr. magoo]

Remember Magoo:

Bruno had a world title because Lennox Lewis lost it to McCall. Bruno then beat McCall taking the title. Thing is King can only do so much; you can take a horse to the waterhole but...

That horse was facing a man who had limited punching ability and average skill, also lost to an aging Tucker. The fact that he had one isolated victory over Lewis didn't prove that he was a world beater.

Singling out one example for the purpose of suiting our views isn't the way to go.

[Bummy Davis]

I think the 1st fight was his greatest win but Mike was already on the mental backslide right after Spinks, he lost Cus, then Rooney,Jacobs and gained King and that was part of his downfall, Mike needed MENTAL support and fortitude that he got securely from Cus...Mike was weak mentally and it showed but the Douglas fight was the shocker, Holyfield the confermation

[josak]

Tyson was still pretty good when he fought Holyfield, so it was a great win. Buster fought maybe a superior version of Tyson, but also one who wasn't training and looked completely bored and 'not-into'it' on the night of the fight.

[JohnThomas1]

Funny, if tyson had destroyed holyfield, he'd get no credit.

Well, most any serious Tyson fan tries to bitch away any credit Holyfield gets anyway.

Let me put it this way - Holyfield gets a fuck of a lot more credit for this fight than Tyson does!

[JohnThomas1]

Really, Tyson before prison was far more fluid in his movements and IMO had better speed.


Well tho short, i still am not sure you read my words fully that you quoted.

In essence you are saying you consider the version of Tyson that Douglas flogged better than the version Holyfield beat? Maybe i misunderstand.

[Jennifer Love Hewitt]

Holyfields win over Tyson is his best win at heavyweight. Holyfield was supposed to be done at this point, but he fought great. I think without this win, Holyfield would not be considered a truly great heavyweight.
If you look, his second best HW win is over 42 year old George Foreman.
Then another over equally old Holmes.
His fight with Mercer is a really good win though.
He loses 2 out of 3 to Bowe.
Drops the title to Moorer. (but gets revenge!)
Loses to Lewis (should be twice)
Then he goes on a string of medicre battles most of which he loses.

[Danny]

Well, he seemed to get an aweful lot of credit for beating an aging Bruno, whom he had already smoked years earlier, plus a great deal of appraisal for taking a win over Seldon, who dropped without even being hit. In fact, he was so highly regarded for these comeback wins that he was actually favored by most to beat Holyfield.


Perhaps the credit Tyson received for beating Bruno in March 1996 was a little over the top, but we should not forget that Mike had been inactive for over four years & then won the WBC title after only being back in action for seven months.

I feel Tyson's win over Bruno merited a lot of credit. Some people went overboard with the praise for Tyson, others didn't give Mike hardly any credit. Bruno was a much better boxer than the fighter who fought Tyson in 1989.

Getting back to the original topic of Holufield's wins over Tyson, I think they go a long way in Holyfield's standing on the all-time great HW list. Holyfield was at one stage, a 25-1 underdog. Despite Tyson being the favourite, I never thought Holyfield was a 25-1 shot to win the fight. In boxing, anything can happen.

[redrooster]

Totally agree. I actually think Holyfield beat a better Tyson than Buster did.

Why if he was much older and had been locked up several years? NOt to mention he had the tar already beat out of him. This makes no sense.

[redrooster]

I remember Ring Magazine in 1998 ranked him as the #3 HW ATG.

As others have said, the wins are huge for Holyfield. What was seen as a, generally, downward slide after Bowe II was abruptly halted with Holyfield's dominanting performance.

I saw that too. I'd have to say Holy was pretty far from the #3 spot.

[Welsh Dragon]

Tyson was on the downhill, its just noone could of imagined it. He was Mr.Boxing before the Buster fight, ripped the script up and everything. Jail, marriage and the death of his trainer finished the Tyson we all admired. Credit to Holyfield but he fought a Tyson who was damaged goods.

[NickHudson]

JT, care to elaborate on this as I am baffled?

Douglas was the man to burst Tyson's bubble. He fought a brilliant fight, sustained power and speed through 10 rounds, and showed tremendous mobility for a big man.

After the Douglas beating, Tysons' self belief clearly wilted, the belief of his opponents was bolstered, and basically the magic had gone (see Ruddock x2).

He then goes to prison, is inactive for years, loses all form of mental stability, ages disgracefully, loses his reflexes and conditioning - but then is somehow better for Holyfield in '96 than he was as an unbeaten champ in '90.

I'm sorry, but this surely has to be fantasy...

Lets hear your logic behind this call!

Totally agree. I actually think Holyfield beat a better Tyson than Buster did.

[JohnThomas1]

JT, care to elaborate on this as I am baffled?

Douglas was the man to burst Tyson's bubble. He fought a brilliant fight, sustained power and speed through 10 rounds, and showed tremendous mobility for a big man.

After the Douglas beating, Tysons' self belief clearly wilted, the belief of his opponents was bolstered, and basically the magic had gone (see Ruddock x2).

He then goes to prison, is inactive for years, loses all form of mental stability, ages disgracefully, loses his reflexes and conditioning - but then is somehow better for Holyfield in '96 than he was as an unbeaten champ in '90.

I'm sorry, but this surely has to be fantasy...

Lets hear your logic behind this call!

Looks like i am in the monority, i thought otherwise to be honest ooooops :oops:

This can answer red's question to etc


Ok, firstly when i look at both fights i plain think Tyson is fighting better in the Holyfield bout. Douglas just paints him, from start to finish mostly. Douglas fought well, but Tyson just doesn't have it together. He looks lost at times and i feel lacks the mean intentions and drive he had against Holyfield.

It's no secret Tyson was totally underprepared before the Douglas fight, stories were around before the fight and Super Greg i think sat him on his arse in sparring.

Tyson's corner in Tokyo is atrocious. Absolutely. Didn't they not even have an enswell?

Tyson's confidence may have been over the top going into Douglas i think, showed up barely trained at all from many sources and may have thought all he had to do was turn up. The Tyson that fought Holyfield sure knew he could be beaten, and he was in excellent shape vs Holyfield, certainly better shape and finer prepared than the one vs Douglas IMO.

I think the big difference is shape and preparation more than peak quotient.

Can others chime in on this one, i am interested to know if i am alone in my views. Personally i thought Tyson fought quite well against Holyfield - but was thwarted by Evander's brilliant tactical plan and great heart.

[NickHudson]

Okay mate, I understand your position a bit better now.

My interpretation - you believe Tyson's elevated motivation in training (8-12 weeks?) and on fight night against Holyfield in 1996 more than compensated for the 6 years of general deterioration he had experienced since 1990.

This is possible (as you have argued), but in my view very unlikely.

Also, when I watch both fights I see a more determined Tyson in the Douglas fight as he gets battered from pillar to post before he eventually capitulates. He presents a picture of a man who believes he will find a way right to the end, even though it doesnt work out. You get the impression if Douglas makes one false move he will pay for it.

Against Holyfield, who admittedly fights a very smart fight (if not a particularly classic or aesthetic one), Tyson appears to run out of ideas and heart pretty quickly...To me, its just not the same fighter.

[JohnThomas1]

Okay mate, I understand your position a bit better now.

My interpretation - you believe Tyson's elevated motivation in training (8-12 weeks?) and on fight night against Holyfield in 1996 more than compensated for the 6 years of general deterioration he had experienced since 1990.

This is possible (as you have argued), but in my view very unlikely.

Also, when I watch both fights I see a more determined Tyson in the Douglas fight as he gets battered from pillar to post before he eventually capitulates. He presents a picture of a man who believes he will find a way right to the end, even though it doesnt work out. You get the impression if Douglas makes one false move he will pay for it.

Against Holyfield, who admittedly fights a very smart fight (if not a particularly classic or aesthetic one), Tyson appears to run out of ideas and heart pretty quickly...To me, its just not the same fighter.

Fair call Nick, maybe i need to watch both again one after another. I'll see if anyone else somehow agree's with me and if not it might be back to school on the matter for me.

[fists of fury]

Tyson's corner in Tokyo is atrocious. Absolutely. Didn't they not even have an enswell?

Can others chime in on this one, i am interested to know if i am alone in my views. Personally i thought Tyson fought quite well against Holyfield - but was thwarted by Evander's brilliant tactical plan and great heart.

They didn't have an enswell.

You have to give Holyfield a lot of credit for the win, irrespective of how far gone Tyson was. It's not like Holyfield was the paragon of physical perfection at that stage of his career either.
He fought a tactically great fight, showed guts and heart when he needed to, and picked a pretty motivated and pumped up Tyson apart.
It was probably the last time we ever saw Tyson REALLY up for a fight...it was almost lke the old days.

I still stick by my claim though that Holyfield stuggles for ATG status without the win.
You can take out Holmes' best win, Ali's best, Louis' best...pretty much any other ATG really, and they have enough in their resume to still rightly be regarded as ATG's.
Holyfield without the Tyson victory is left with probably Bowe 2 as his best win. Credit to him for coming back the way he did to prove the doubter's wrong, but he did lose the series nonetheless. Drew and lost to Lewis (no disgrace, esp. as he was past it then) but he struggled too often with has-beens or never-wases, and his performances were quite erratic at times.

[NickHudson]

FOF - No doubt Holyfields HW 'ATG' resume falls into pieces without the Tyson win. I completely agree with you.

It is due to this exact logic that I am critical of Holyfield being ranked so high in HW lists. I don't rate that '96 version of Tyson, so Holyfield's win does not mean so much to me.

Of course, Holyfield was thought to be more far gone prior to the bout so the result was a great win for the underdog, but I am not convinced that that itself legitimises ATG status...(i.e. doing 'very well' instead of 'terribly', is not better than only doing 'excellently' when you are expected to do 'brilliantly' for the simple reason that excellent is better than very good!!!!)

PS I fully support a stellar P4P placing for Holyfield based on the inclusion of his excellent cruiser career.



They didn't have an enswell.

You have to give Holyfield a lot of credit for the win, irrespective of how far gone Tyson was. It's not like Holyfield was the paragon of physical perfection at that stage of his career either.
He fought a tactically great fight, showed guts and heart when he needed to, and picked a pretty motivated and pumped up Tyson apart.
It was probably the last time we ever saw Tyson REALLY up for a fight...it was almost lke the old days.

I still stick by my claim though that Holyfield stuggles for ATG status without the win.
You can take out Holmes' best win, Ali's best, Louis' best...pretty much any other ATG really, and they have enough in their resume to still rightly be regarded as ATG's.
Holyfield without the Tyson victory is left with probably Bowe 2 as his best win. Credit to him for coming back the way he did to prove the doubter's wrong, but he did lose the series nonetheless. Drew and lost to Lewis (no disgrace, esp. as he was past it then) but he struggled too often with has-beens or never-wases, and his performances were quite erratic at times.