Tyson Vs. Holyfield III - Why Not?! (Part II)
16.12.05 - Aidan Monaghan: It seems some of the extraordinary (to say the least in a few cases) reader responses to the very suggestion of a third Tyson/Holyfield heavyweight bout, warrants some analysis and a response. Some recent noteworthy reactions to this authors suggestion of a Tyson/Holyfield III bout:
Article posted on 16.12.2005
"I have completely lost respect for what this author has to say"
"it's a f****** stupid idea and makes about as much sense as Ali-Frazier IV"
" What do you want to do,keep throwing these old guys into the ring until somebody gets killed?"
"This IS offensive."
Wow! Coming from fans of one of the most violent sports on Earth, this sudden attack of dignity and morality is well ...
(Hmm ... I wonder how many of the "outraged" here held an interest in the recent Jones/Tarver III bout that included a past his prime Roy Jones - who had lost his previous 2 bouts by devastating KO - going up against the best light-heavyweight fighter in the world, Antonio Tarver?)
And uh ... for that matter, where is the expressed concern for perfectly healthy lighter weight fighters who as a result of dehydration during the process of making weight, must leave their brains vulnerable to greater injury when hit and who often die as a result?
Come on folks.
Some of the resistance evident among Eastside Boxing readers regarding a possible Tyson/Holyfield III bout resembles that of those who insist that female athletes should not compete in boxing.
Three Cheers for the restrictionists!
The fact remains, fighters much older and past their prime than Tyson or Holyfield (an almost 50 year old George Foreman facing an at the time, very dangerous Shannon Briggs, for example) have fought successfully. Clearly, Tyson and Holyfield do not possess the stuff to compete against the divisions best. And this author is not even suggesting a match up against anyone but each other. Does this therefore exclude them from competing against fighters of skills comparable to their own? (Each other)
And contrary to what some suggest, neither fighter has displayed any ill affects of the time in the sport. Some have alleged that Evander Holyfield's speech patterns are evidence of too much time in the ring. The always soft spoken Holyfield has never been confused with someone who is speaking circuit material. To compare his conduct to that of Thomas Hearns or Meldrick Taylor would be stretching the truth.
For restrictionists who feel that Tyson and Holyfield should not engage in what is at the very least and interesting match up - at what point do we then forbid boxers from continuing their careers?
Do some prefer the final memory of Holyfield being totally schooled by a younger and better Larry Donald? Or a Tyson simply quitting on his stool against Kevin McBride because his heart was simply not into the fight?
Holyfield Vs. Tyson III (Part I) did not advocate the indefinite continuation of careers that probably should end in the near future - if not by now - but simply advocated the idea of a final farewell event for two great fighters who deserve better than a final memory of quitting on the stool or of having circles run around them by far superior fighters in an undercard bout.
But hey - for those who insist I'm wrong, there is always Chris Byrd vs. Davarill Williamson II, right?!
previous article: Where is the Love For John Ruiz?
next article: Paez Jr headlines in San Diego on Dec 23
Boxing Forum | Boxing | Bet On This Fight | Back To Top