He should not have retired at that point. His problem after his fight with Foreman was that he really wanted a fight with Mike Tyson and it never happened until late '96. He moved up to HW in 1988 because he wanted to fight Tyson. Holyfield became the #1 contender after he beat Michael Dokes in early 1989. Tyson was set to fight Holyfield in late 1990 but lost to Buster Douglas. Holyfield won the HW Title by beating Douglas in October of '90. Holyfield looked good vs. Foreman and was set to fight Tyson next. Tyson pulled out due to injuries a couple of times then went to jail for a while. Holyfield was never gonna get the respect he deserved until he beat Tyson. Holyfield lost to Bowe in a great fight but I really don't think he was at his best. Holyfield fought very well in the rematch and had he retired at this point it would have served him well. At this point he should have just waited for Tyson to get out of jail. He should have come back to beat Tyson and then retired again. 31-1 (23) but we wouldn't have seen his wins over Mercer and Moorer (rematch), his close loss to Lewis (the rematch), his win over Rahman, and his b.s. loss to Valuev. We also wouldn't have seen the losses to Moorer (1st fight), Bowe (3rd fight), the b.s. draw with Lewis, the 3 sloppy fights Ruiz, and a few other fights I'd like to forget about. 31-1 (23) and 12-1 (8KOs) in world title bouts, no KO losses. Not bad.
Such a question is a perfect example of how pretty records can be deceiving. Though Holyfield was already a legend at cruiserweight for unifying the opinion of him as a heavyweight was that of a fortunate and marked man. Just the respect he got from standing up to Bowe was something of a revelation. When he evened the score his stock as a heavyweight went up immeasurably. When you had commentators such as Ian Darke claiming after Bowe I that it "must be the end for Evander Holyfield" you can appreciate the magnitude of what he went on to do.
he should have retired after Tyson II those fights made him an extra 50 mil he would have been leaving that on the table had he retired after Holmes.
Well, Holyfield is without a doubt one of the greatest fighters, and it's a fact. Let's take a closer look at his resume. Holyfield has beaten more lineal HW Champions than anyone in history - Douglas, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe, Moorer, Tyson, Rahman. Holyfield also has wins over HW titleholders like Dokes, Thomas, Mercer, Ruiz, Botha and had beaten (but was robbed) against Valuev at the age of 46. Holy's resume till he turned 30 was already excellent, 28-0 (22 ko's). And you hardly can find so deep resume in the first 28 fights in any weight division. Here are his accoplishments in 28 fights: - Undisputed cruiserweight and heavyweight World champion - 10-0 (7 KO) in world title fights - Had already had 4 wins over Hall of Famers in Qawi (twice), Foreman and Holmes - 10!!! wins in 28 fights over lineal champions or beltholders - Became world champion in only 12th fight after beating HOF fighter Dwight Qawi. For example, great HW Lennox Lewis at the age of 30 had record 26-1 (22 KO), had No wins over HOF fighters, was 3-1 (2 KO) in title fights and had 4 wins over beltholders (0 over lineal champions). That's how deep Holyfield resume was when he was still undefeated. But later he went on to beat Bowe, Tyson, Moorer, Mercer, Ruiz, Rahman (at 40), Valuev (at 46, more clearly than Haye did). And YES, he beat all these fighters while being well past his prime years (which were 1987-1992). Holy was totally shot when he beat Rahman at 40, and completely washed up when he exposed Valuev at 46. He suffered many defeats to fighters he would've beaten in his prime, yes. Do these losses tarnish his legacy? Well, Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles and many other greats had lost many fights at the late stages of their careers. I think the best time to retire was 1998, when Holy was clearly past-it (as was shown in fight against Bean), being 36 y.o., with a record 36-3 and being three times world HW champion and at that time unified WBA/IBF HW champion of the world. However, Holy went on to fight for 12 more years, which resulted in 8-7-2 record. Lennox Lewis, on the other hand, is an example of retiring at the right time, at 37. Holyfield should've done the same thing.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield would probably have beaten most other fighters at that time. He was motivated and dangerous.
I don't see how. I would take the focused supremely fit Tyson of Evander II for certain over the version from the Douglas and Ruddock II fights. I hear all the time people saying Tyson wasn't throwing combos against Evander but how could he? Evander tied him up after the first punch almost everytime, the loan exception being the 3rd Round(I think) where Evander got stunned and ate a couple hook/uppercuts before regrouping.
Exactly, and he did do a mini-clean up of belt holders Bruno & Seldon. Making easier work of a supposedly improved Bruno than he did years previously. Even showed good prose against Mathis Jr, who gave Bowe fits and was frustrating Mike early. From 86-2000, the only fights I think Mike really looked off his game to a degree that it wasn't entirely his opponent's doing was Douglas, Ruddock II, Botha, & Norris.
Losing fights does not necessarily damage a fighter's reputation it is the manner of defeat that counts. In Holyfield's case he enhanced his reputation whether he was winning or losing up until the Ruiz fights. He showed the heart, guts and skill of a true champion in some real wars long after his fight with Holmes and his dismantling of Tyson showed the qualities that Tyson himself lacked and hi-lighted what a class operator he was.
I'm dying for someone to explain in detail about the erosion Mike Tysons skill-set post prison. Anyone who wants to step up please do so, in fact explain to me in detail how exactly and where exactly this was happening in his repotiore? For example lets break down his best moments at HW...say Thomas or Biggs and then you can explain to me how he would have fought had Holyfield been in there walking him backwards and punching him harder. You might say that the deterioration started clearly in the Ruddock fights whereas I say that he was simply lazy in those fights and when he came back he had a renewed hunger this is why he beat Bruno quicker and in a far more decisive fashion. For the Bruno, Seldon, Mathis, Holy fights he could not have fought better, even 8 years before he would have still been missing punches at Mathis's bob and weave Cuss style. So nikrj , Azzer85, seamus time for you to step up and stop hiding behind bull**** reasons as to why Tyson lost his invincibility. Lets have it.
