Holyfield...Did he just have Tyson's number?

[Primadonna Kool]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

Simply Tyson was no longer a fighter both mentally and physically equipped to be successful on the championship level.

Let me give you another example. Do you think the Tyson that fought Evander Holyfield would have been able to compete with Razor Ruddock like he did in 90? Tyson was declined in those fights, but still able to fight a fight much more grueling than the Holyfield fight.

Razor Ruddock..

Was the biggest retard fighter of the 90's, he fought Mike Tyson like a complete retard. He used no jab, and i don't think he knows..or had the skill to through straight Punches.

[Primadonna Kool]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

Simply Tyson was no longer a fighter both mentally and physically equipped to be successful on the championship level.

Let me give you another example. Do you think the Tyson that fought Evander Holyfield would have been able to compete with Razor Ruddock like he did in 90? Tyson was declined in those fights, but still able to fight a fight much more grueling than the Holyfield fight.

Razor Ruddock..

Was the biggest retard fighter of the 90's, he fought Mike Tyson like a complete retard. He used no jab, and i don't think he knows..or had the skill to throw straight Punches.

[gooners!!]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

It doesnt matter what the preconception was before. Its what happened after that proved it.
Holyfield was supposedly shot but the big suprise was that it was Tyson that was the one that was shot.
Let me ask you would the late 80's version of Tyson struggle with the likes of Mathis and Frans Botha?
Its clear you dislike Tyson and thats fine, but trying to make him seem like the same pre prison Tyson is like saying the Holyfield that fought Chris Byrd and James Toney was the same old Holyfield.
It works both ways really, the people that hate Tyson are as delusional as the people that worship him.
Doesnt matter about age either and who was closer to their best, all fighters are different, Inactivity, poor conditioning, etc are all factors in a fighters ability to maintain their prime. Holyfield's decline was muddled with inconsistency, whereas fighers like Riddick Bowe and Mike Tyson fell off a cliff.

People that are delusional Tyson fans are the reason there are so called Tyson haters, but how could you hold a grudge against Tyson when he was so exciting to watch, the problems arise when fans have no perception of where he should be placed based on what he achieved, its like banging your head against a brick wall and leads the people who are trying to bring some commonsense to the argument to say derogatory things about Tyson to try and get through to the hardcore Tyson fans who have skin like a rhino and a list of excuses, but they dont actually dislike Tyson, they are fans, they are just realists who can apply commonsense without letting their favour for that particular fighter cloud their judgment and make excuse after excuse.

Your argument falls down because not only was Holyfield envolved in many more tough fights than Tyson he was also not that successful after his wins
over Tyson.

You can twist it which ever way you want but he lost lost to Bowe, Moorer 1 ( and looked terrible ) before beating Tyson and then after beating Tyson he beat a past his best Moorer whom had been knocked out by an ancient Foreman and ironically enough had just as much if not more trouble with Botha whom you seem to think its a disgrace for Mike to look bad against, but Moorer is supposed to be a good win for Holyfield right? he then had a lackluster performances against Bean and should of lost twice to Lewis, he won 3 rounds of the fight with Lewis or should of anyway.

He quite clearly lost to Ruiz 1 st time and Ruiz got jobbbed of the decision, he then lost again to Ruiz even getting dropped and not long after came his schoolings at the hands of Toney, Byrd, Donald.

Holyfield's win over Tyson was the one last great performance that all great fighters have in them.

Holyfield's record was as sketchy as Mike's when it comes to wins!! difference being not only was Holyfield a better fighter overall he also had a better defence and better Boxing skills meaning he did not have to walk into the wheel house of his opponents to have success, so he did not get brutalized, he still isn't getting brutalized at his age now so you know there is merit to that argument, what are we to believe that he still isn't shot because he can be competitive with Valuev? he was just a better fighter than Mike with more skill.

There is no way Mike Tyson who fought Holyfield was any worse off than Holyfield physically and if he was after those fights its because Holyfield give it him in two fights. You would have to believe that he WAS! though wouldn't you because what would that say about Mike getting beat by a fighter to whom he had equal physical attributes left, it would lead you to face the reality of the situation.

Think about this you have already tried to tell us that Holyfield basically hung in there and waited it out and took advantage because/when Mike was tired, then you come with all these other excuses, if that is not trying to take away from the mans victory i dont know what is, that is an indication or your impartiality regarding Mike Tyson. Like its already been said you would not be so philological and giving Holy the benefit of the doubt if Tyson had, had his hands raised at the end would you?

Its nothing to do with hate more about delusional fans, that want to paint their own picture.

[Arka]

Originally Posted by My2Sense

No you didn't.



No, you just asked me if I thought Lewis would always have his number, not what I based that opinion on.

Fair enough.I assumed you noticed the conjunction.There seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding here.

[Arka]

OK this is my take on it.I think that Holyfield had greater torque on his single shots on the side.Tyson was by far the greater combination puncher.Holyfield was a better boxer on the outside.Tyson had a good jab,could lead to the body and far greater power midrange and on the outside and was extremely difficult to hit in his prime.

I think Tyson could take this with a disciplined strategy of using the jab,leading to the body,not letting Evander get too close and using a lot of feints.

By the same token I believe Riddick Bowe off all the fighters in the last two decades had the best offensive tools to beat Mike.That of course depends on whether he could stick to a gameplan.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by Bummy Davis

Evander did what he had to do with fighters that he was suposed to expose, Buster Douglas (impressive) and he looked good coming up vs Michael Dokes...but he was having heart issues and stamina problems during the Bowe,Moorer and Beans fights..He fought even in 3 fight with Ruiz...he did not look so great vs Foreman and Holmes...he did not look impressive in his fight prior to Tyson vs Middleweight Cyz but his best wins were Tyson and Douglas , The Lewis fights Lewis won safely and he did have a good fight over the beatable but had to stop Mercer and then a faded Holyfeild was stopped by body shots and James Toney...If we remove the Tyson fights...where would he fit in on an ATG list and are we overating those wins?

Some think that any talented fighter with mental and physical toughness that survived the early rounds had Tyson's number.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

When you look at the two fights, Holyfield didnt do anything spectacular. He didnt dominate Tyson nor did he befuddle him with boxing skills. He simply weathered the storm until Tyson was so fatigued he couldnt continue. He held and grappled more than he boxed. It was nothing like the Douglas fight where Tyson was completely outboxed and outclassed, so to say he had Tysons number is kind of ridiculous, especially considering Tyson was a far better fighter in the late 80's early 90's and noone should deny that.

I think this is oversimplified, but you do have a point. The first five was evenly fought (I had Tyson slightly ahead), but after the fifth Tyson faded very fast and Holyfield could just pick it up. I do think that Holyfield showed skill and smart tactical thinking as well as heart and resilience, but seeing how Tyson went missing after the first five it's hard not too se his lack of stamina and/or resilience as a big factor.

Thing is, Tyson never really showed he could keep going strongly after five rounds in a tough, competitive fight. One good punch landed against Douglas doesn't change that for me. This will always be a big question mark concerning Tyson and fans will continue to fill it with their own pre-conceived notions of the man.

[lefthook31]

Originally Posted by Primadonna Kool

Razor Ruddock..

Was the biggest retard fighter of the 90's, he fought Mike Tyson like a complete retard. He used no jab, and i don't think he knows..or had the skill to through straight Punches.

Regardless of how Razor Ruddock fought the fights, (in which I believe your wrong with your assessment), it still showed ten times more resilience and toughness on Tysons part, than he did in the Holyfied fights, and that was the point.

[lefthook31]

Originally Posted by Bokaj

I think this is oversimplified, but you do have a point. The first five was evenly fought (I had Tyson slightly ahead), but after the fifth Tyson faded very fast and Holyfield could just pick it up. I do think that Holyfield showed skill and smart tactical thinking as well as heart and resilience, but seeing how Tyson went missing after the first five it's hard not too se his lack of stamina and/or resilience as a big factor.

Thing is, Tyson never really showed he could keep going strongly after five rounds in a tough, competitive fight. One good punch landed against Douglas doesn't change that for me. This will always be a big question mark concerning Tyson and fans will continue to fill it with their own pre-conceived notions of the man.

You dont believe the Ruddock fights were competitive? You didnt see a determined will to win in contrast to Tyson basically giving up in the second half of the first Holyfield fight, and showing little boxing savvy?

[lefthook31]

Originally Posted by gooners!!

People that are delusional Tyson fans are the reason there are so called Tyson haters, but how could you hold a grudge against Tyson when he was so exciting to watch, the problems arise when fans have no perception of where he should be placed based on what he achieved, its like banging your head against a brick wall and leads the people who are trying to bring some commonsense to the argument to say derogatory things about Tyson to try and get through to the hardcore Tyson fans who have skin like a rhino and a list of excuses, but they dont actually dislike Tyson, they are fans, they are just realists who can apply commonsense without letting their favour for that particular fighter cloud their judgment and make excuse after excuse.

Your argument falls down because not only was Holyfield envolved in many more tough fights than Tyson he was also not that successful after his wins
over Tyson.

You can twist it which ever way you want but he lost lost to Bowe, Moorer 1 ( and looked terrible ) before beating Tyson and then after beating Tyson he beat a past his best Moorer whom had been knocked out by an ancient Foreman and ironically enough had just as much if not more trouble with Botha whom you seem to think its a disgrace for Mike to look bad against, but Moorer is supposed to be a good win for Holyfield right? he then had a lackluster performances against Bean and should of lost twice to Lewis, he won 3 rounds of the fight with Lewis or should of anyway.

He quite clearly lost to Ruiz 1 st time and Ruiz got jobbbed of the decision, he then lost again to Ruiz even getting dropped and not long after came his schoolings at the hands of Toney, Byrd, Donald.

Holyfield's win over Tyson was the one last great performance that all great fighters have in them.

Holyfield's record was as sketchy as Mike's when it comes to wins!! difference being not only was Holyfield a better fighter overall he also had a better defence and better Boxing skills meaning he did not have to walk into the wheel house of his opponents to have success, so he did not get brutalized, he still isn't getting brutalized at his age now so you know there is merit to that argument, what are we to believe that he still isn't shot because he can be competitive with Valuev? he was just a better fighter than Mike with more skill.

There is no way Mike Tyson who fought Holyfield was any worse off than Holyfield physically and if he was after those fights its because Holyfield give it him in two fights. You would have to believe that he WAS! though wouldn't you because what would that say about Mike getting beat by a fighter to whom he had equal physical attributes left, it would lead you to face the reality of the situation.

Think about this you have already tried to tell us that Holyfield basically hung in there and waited it out and took advantage because/when Mike was tired, then you come with all these other excuses, if that is not trying to take away from the mans victory i dont know what is, that is an indication or your impartiality regarding Mike Tyson. Like its already been said you would not be so philological and giving Holy the benefit of the doubt if Tyson had, had his hands raised at the end would you?

Its nothing to do with hate more about delusional fans, that want to paint their own picture.

Holyfield was a better fight than Tyson, at that time, regardless of his age and how many wars he was in. To say that Tyson was at his best and based off of those fights, Holyfield would have always beaten Tyson is ridiculous. Its not a foregone conclusion Tyson would win, but he was certainly a better fighter than he was in 96.

[Unforgiven]

Tyson wasn't at his best but Holyfield was picked as an opponent because he was obviously and clearly already way past his best !
Holyfield still beat him up.

[Arka]

Hmmm...I'm thinking maybe Evander would be more of a favourite to win in a 15 round fight.

[Bokaj]

Originally Posted by lefthook31

You dont believe the Ruddock fights were competitive? You didnt see a determined will to win in contrast to Tyson basically giving up in the second half of the first Holyfield fight, and showing little boxing savvy?

No, I don't think they were very competitive and the judges obviously didn't either. The notion that they were competitive fights might be because Ruddock landed more than most did on Tyson, but the truth of the matter is that Tyson dictated the tempo and was never really put under pressure.

[Jersey Joe]

If Tyson had kept Kevin Rooney, kept training properly, not been distracted by women/money/fame, not gone to jail for rape, then...he wouldn't be Mike Tyson would he? He'd be another person. And since we're judging the actual Mike Tyson vs the actual Evander Holyfield, not a hypothetical perfect alternate reality Tyson without any flaws vs the actual Holyfield warts & all, since the latter would be a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison.

Hey, I have an idea - what if Ali had Tyson's power, Marciano's training discipline, Gene Tunney's IQ and boxing smarts, and Ray Arcel as his personal fight strategist? What if Joe Louis had a granite chin and Jersey Joe Walcott's slickness and WWII had not happened? What if I was an invicincilbe superman who could knock guys out just by looking at them?

Sometimes when talking with Tyson fans I get the impression they think Mike would have been all these things combined, if only he hadn't...{insert random excuse here}.

[Arka]

Yeah.It's ridiculous isn't it,Jersey Joe?

Why do we even bother with these fantasy fights?