Holyfield achieved more for me, close but clear. Tyson is the more formidable head to head fighter. I rank Holyfield ahead, but Tyson not far behind. Wouldn't argue the reverse if you thought Tyson came clear ahead, but I've heard people put him ahead in rank and admit they are virtually even. In that case, I believe head to head RESULTS have to be the tie breaker, and Holyfield beat Tyson twice. Thats his edge in a close argument.
Valid opinion as that's exactly how I used to split them. Today tho i've decided that mike gets the edge on h2h skills because he was a truly dominant champ who cleared up, I don't think holyfield ever was as good as peak tyson.
I love Tyson ! But Holyfield beat better fighters than him.....simple as that..... and Holyfield was past prime in 96 as well....that win is great for his resume....
Holyfield did beat better fighters, I agree on that. But is that enough to offset mike's dominance and his successful comeback? I don't think it is.
Yes it is How successful was his comeback realistically? The fighters he beat were nothing special and he couldnt beat Holyfield who realistically was as good as a guy like Tony Tucker or Tony Tubbs when they fought, so id say it wasnt that successful. Tyson should have steamrolled that version of Holyfield if he was as good as he once was.
his comeback was pretty special imo: coming back against mcneeley and mathis who between them had a 56-1 record then going on and knocking out bruno, seldon, botha, norris, savarese, golota, francis, nielsen and ettiene. losing only to holyfield and lewis, two great fighters who between them would rule the division from 97 to 04. In reality he went 11-3 winning every fight by knockout losing only to two atg heavyweights. by 2003 he was so shot and battle weary it isn't worth discussing. To do all this after spending 4 years in prison is the stuff of legend. The point is, tyson was not as good as he once was. anyone can see him in 87 and see how much he'd slipped, but he was still good enough to rise to the top of the division and be ranked as the number 1 contender in 2002, a staggering 16 years after his first title victory.
Tyson. Longevity is in Holyfield's court, but not on par with a Larry Holmes or Joe Louis. Tyson's dominant reign has more weight than that longevity. Tyson at #7 and Holyfield at #11.
I don't see why unless you think considering Holyfield's Tyson wins as great constitutes beign a fanboy, Holyfield was arguably further removed from his prime when those fights happened. It was a master class of neutralising Tyson's style, with straighter punches and counter punching Tyson's Ettiene win maybe worth mentioning, Ettiene had beat Brewster who had just beat Wlad, although someone reckoned Brewster hurt his knee for that fight - but it was a Klit fan who said that. Norris is a decent win, but pretty much a gatekeeper at best Holyfield actually went unbeaten from 84-92 until the age of 30 (the same age Mike was who lost to Evander) and made more defenses of the lineal title before losing it. Tyson did pretty much clean out the division before losing, Evander didn't manage that. But guess who Tyson didn't clean out of the division EVANDER HOLYFIELD & Buster Douglas........Evander ofcourse has the much better pre-title run (if we are including Tyson as a champ from 86) Incidently both were fighting top rated HW contenders for 4years before the lost, Marciano is considered dominant but only fought at the top level for 4-5years before retiring and arguably lost in that time (Lastarza and I think it was Mendoza reckons he lost to Lowry or someone - take that with a pinch of salt)
I said fanboyish because of the "nuthugger" comment, labels like that are what's turned the GF into a laughing stock :good I most certainly count it as a great win however, I've taken stock of Tyson much more since he hit the hall, even though he wasn't at his peak (skillwise, not age or physical wise) he was definitely the best HW in the world at the point holy beat him. People can clamber on about lineage all they want but they do have to accept that the lineal champ isn't always the best on the planet and noone will ever tell me that foreman-briggs was more of a championship fight than tyson-holy. ettiene was a decent win, considering that by this point tyson was shot. yes I'd call Tyson a champ for 86 because Spinks was only gifted his belt and Tyson beat NBerbick who was coming off a good run himself, Spinks hid in obscurity like forememan did in 95. yeah Rocky gets his propes for clearing out a division and being unbeaten so I'm happy having him as high as I do. He never fought valdes but he did fight moore who beat valdes so it aint too bad.
TBF I'd probably go with Lewis as the best HW in the world in '96, Tyson, Bowe, Golota and Holy are right up there though and Tyson would go onto blow out Golota. Tyson apologists (to be less GF for you ) have revised Tyson to be a past it boxer who forgot how to box. The Bruno and Seldon wins have been written off as nothing wins but Bruno had just beat McCall and Seldon just beat a good Ticker. I think that '96 Tyson still beats most HWs in history, including many top20 HWs at their peak, if you couldn't take his initial barrage of punches you were in big trouble, even Evander looked ready to go a few times. What's not mentioned about the fight is the low blow in R6, a bigger turning point that the butts imo
hmmm i'm not quite sure Lewis in 96 would have taken 96 tyson nor holyfield you know. I think in 97 he started looking realy good and obviously by 99 he was quite superior to everyone else. yes apologists is much better haha. I noticed the trend as well, at first people dismissed everything post prison saying it doesn't count and that Tyson was the goat based on the 80's. Then people based everything on post prison saying Tyson was a face first brawler who lost whenever someone stood up to him. I think the truth is inbetween. Physically speaking there is no reason that Tyson wouldn't have still been prime in 96, he was only 30 after all. Considering the prison stint though, it was clear his style had changed and his skills had somewhat diminished. However he had a much more fierce mean streak and could still throw as fast as ever. I think my summisation of the Tyson-holy fights is that it's enough to definitively say that based off them fights Holy would have beaten Tyson in 1988. Had holy got there before douglas in 90 I'm certain he'd have iced Tyson then, but even then Tyson wasn't still at his peak level IMHO. Bruno and Seldon are quite underrated, two top 5 HW's coming off very good victories as you say. The Tyson in Bruno two is arguably the most fierce tyson ever to enter the ring and had 96 holy been in that fight I'm not 100% sure Tyson would have lost to him. I'm not at all excusing any losses of Tyson's (except Williams and McBride because they blatantly don't count) he chose to prepare how he prepared and fight how he fought, that's all on him. I'm more saying that i'm not convinced Holyfield had Tyson's number.
McNeeley was a complete can with a fabricated record. Mathis was a decent fighter but not much of a threat in anyway. He didnt knockout Norris, he was getting his butt kicked by Botha, should have been Dq'd for the Savarese fight. Francis, Nielson, ehh. Tyson was a lot better in his past. Realistically the best fighter he probably beat in his entire comeback was Bruno, who was pretty far past his best himself. Tyson was still a force, but nothing like the fighter of the late 80's, and his activity and persona always showed a guy who was only there for the money.
McNeeley/Mathis were his first fights back, Botha was after a 3 year lay off. Obviously he wouldn't be at his best. He looked much sharper against Bruno, Seldon, Holyfield
I think Tyson/Holyfield were fading and Lewis was on his way up,would have been a good fight back then, Tyson ofcourse was kept away from Lewis in '96 to face the supposed weaker force in Holyfield I certainly think Tyson was better pre-prison and yes I'd agree the truth is inbetween the 'Tyson was shot and post prison fights mean nothing' and 'these fights prove anyone who stood upto Tyson would beat him'. Holyfield was better from 88-91 and I think Holyfield could beat pre-prison Tyson. Tyson said Holyfield was the best counter puncher he ever faced and imo that would always be a big factor. Tyson/Holy both had more physical strength (Holy especially) in '96 but both had depleted stamina, what a great fight it would have been from '88-'91 :| It was a great fight anyway tbf