are you seriously trying to discredit someone breaking a record that your hero mikey couldn't do? when he lost the title to Bowe then regained it AND avenged his loss something tyson never did. after that "In a shocking upset, Moorer would defeat Holyfield via majority decision with judges Jerry Roth and Chuck Giampa giving Moorer the victory by the scores of 115114 and 116112 respectively, while Dalby Shirley scored the fight even at 114114. In the second round, Moorer was in control of the fight until Holyfield caught him with a left hook that dropped Moorer to the canvas. Though earning a knockdown would usually result in a round win for the fighter, judge Jerry Roth scored the round even at 1010 instead of 109 which would have made the fight a majority draw in which Holyfield would have kept his titles." He should've gotten a draw and retained the title. he also beat 4 Heavyweight Atgs. How many did Tyson beat? None.
Tyson ranks higher due to Holyfield's career being fuelled by drugs. I do like Holyfield but he was a drugs cheat. A great fighter none the less but not quite as great as we were lead to believe.
Tyson wouldn't get his jaw broken by Marty Marshall and wouldn't be behind against someone like Williams
Not trying to discredit it. The accomplishment itself is a backhanded compliment which supposes one must lose the title 3 times in order to win it 4 times. And who were these 4 all time great heavyweights he beat?
Yes, it does represent great longevity which really is the crux of the discussion. Does one value more a fighter who stormed the division and cleaned it out or one who stuck around at the highest level for over a decade?
is that the fight where hed been out of boxing for two years and then knocked him out the first decent punch he landed? oh that Frans Botha. Same botha who claimed Tyson hit him harder than Moorer, Lewis, Holyfield and Wladmir? For those who haven't see the Botha Ko. This was Tysons first fight in two years after the bite fight http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYSi-fAePl4
What has tilted in Tyson's favour for me is that he had a couple of nights on which he looked like he might have been unbeatable. He probably wasn't, but against Spinks, for example, there was a sense that he might have beaten anyone - anyone, ever. Holyfield never had a night like that. A minimum of science or logic on display here, and rather unfair to Holyfield who was something of a "find a way" type guy anyway, but there it is.
Tyson couldn't carry Holyfields jockstrap, Holyfield had his number from the day they sparred. For those who haven't seen Tyson have his ass handed to him. Holyfield was an old war torn veteran yet still demolished Tinkerbell Tyson. http://youtu.be/G_fM3OIbua4
That's all the hype speaking, stick Holyfield in that same ring on that night and I guarantee Tyson would have got a beating.
The only thing i'll guarantee is that you're guarantee is worthless. I probably would pick Holyfield best-for-best though.
He basically knocked out a blown up light heavyweight who was looking for a big final payday who also happened to be petrified, yeah some unbeatable fighter alright. I'd honestly fancy comeback Foreman to beat him as well.