I don't understand why that is considered controversial TBH. I think it's pretty easy to justify. Holyfield never came close to Tyson's dominance.
Well, gee, a well past prime Holy beat the crap out of past prime Tyson twice and won the title four times. Who did Tyson beat that was as good as prime Riddick Bowe? Certainly not grandpa Larry.
Tyson was awesome against Holmes nobody could have out-classed and destroyed Larry like that even at that age, Mike was a brilliant counter/pressure fighter.
Not a Holmes who hadn't fought in over 16 months. And let's face it, does anyone believe the Holmes who fought from Witherspoon on was anywhere near the Holmes who knocked the living dog poop out of Leon Spinks? That means he was five years (count 'em) past his prime. Big deal. No disrespect, Mark. Even Mike admitted he couldn't have beat prime Holmes.
You mean Holmes who four years later came back in his 40s and schooled Mercer, and went the distance with Holyfield? When did Tyson say that?
Tyson was clearly more past it than Holyfield, for their fight. Holyfield never had a run half as good as Tyson's. B The fact the living steroid lab lost to Bowe twice kinda detracts from his win