Id rank Holyfield higher. I dont think his resume is really that much better than Tysons. But what puts him ahead for me is He beat Douglas, beat Tyson (twice) and the 'draw' with Lewis edges it for me. Tyson on the other hand would never ever lose to any version of Michael Moorer. And to me Riddick Bowe is a glorified Buster Douglas (with more heart and better management). What robs Tyson of some consolation is that he never got a chance to rematch Douglas. In hindsight we can probably agree that Holyfields win over Foreman was better than Tysons over Ruddock. But at the time, it was Tyson who took on the better foe.
Entaowed, you always accuse Holy for using PEDs and rank him lower bacause of that. Do you rank lower Roy Jones jr, James Toney, Shane Mosley, Antonio Tarver because of that, too? Your answer should be "Yes":yep
I like winning against the odds and longevity, so I prefer Evander. However, in terms of steroids I think the difference is that more of Hollyfield's major achievements come during the time I am suspicious of than tyson. Obviously tyson could have been on them before prison, but I don't see much of a case for that.(I think steroids is the ped reffered to in this thread, idk what else they were doing and steroids have a bigger effect than other things)
As for PED's once again, many more atlhetes use PED's, not only the people that were caught. Here's Joey Gilbert, The Contender One participant, and not-so-good boxer, getting caught using so many PED's - "A Reno Gazette-Journal article by reporter Steve Sneddon says the newspaper obtained documents that show Gilbert tested positive for Stanozolol Metabolite, methamphetamine, amphetamine, nordiazepam, oxazepam and temazepam, which are drugs and stimulants not approved by the commission." Well Gilbert never was world level, nor was he muscular like Arnold Sczhwarcenegger. He was an average boxer with an average body using 6 different substances to improve results. That makes me think all of them even at that level aren't clean. As you can see in Gilbert case, even so many drugs don't make you elite athlete. Because others use PED's too but are more gifted, more talented naturally.
I think people are being hard on Evander for the PED thing. Reason being is that I think Tyson was on them too by the time they fought. I honestly could make a case for either being ahead. Just depends on criteria and preference. Had they fought on 8 November 1991 like they were supposed to (when both were closer to prime) the answer may have been more clear-cut.
sangria's top ten what a ****ing joke. Louis Ali Holmes Johnson Marciano Tyson Lewis Foreman Dempsey Frazier Holyfield Liston Wlad Jeffries
no it's not my list. but it's funny how you ALWAYS come to Sangria's rescue no matter what thread. coincidence? i think not.:think
It's close. P4P it's Holyfield especially given his cruiserweight accomplishments. H2H in their peaks probably Tyson, but that said Holyfield beat Tyson twice when they actually fought. Tyson as great as he was often relied (not always his fault) on intimidating opponents before they even entered the ring. This never worked on elite fighters such as Holyfield. Competition I'd give the edge to Holyfield, so based on the whole picture I'd rank Holyfield higher but it's a close call.
Comon. You simply don't against all odds become the youngest heavyweight champion ever, global superstar by age 20, to disgraced former champion and convicted ******, to champion again at age 30, to another path of drug abuse self destruction and retirement from boxing, only to re-invent yourself as a comedian, actor, promoter and all the rest of it all the while becoming a revered and mythical figure who's in demand all over the world to this day, you simply do not reach this status without having heart and mental fortitude. Its an illogical argument. Wake up.
it has nothing to do with heart. what does have something to do with heart is quitting in matches you're losing.