Legend vs legend - Muhammad Ali vs Mike Tyson - When legends collide

Sounds like some Dragonball Z anime bull****, but let's say it's true.

-From 1990 when he KOd Douglas until 1996 when he stopped Tyson, the only other stoppage Hoylfield scored was Cooper, a man who was stopped 16x in his career. Is that an impressive display of power?

-He went the distance with Stewart despite stopping him in their previous fight.

-He couldn't KO Moorer despite Moorer lacking durability. To be fair he did stop Moorer in the rematch, but this seems more like an adjustment/game plan thing than a display of power.

-he failed to stop two old fossils in Holmes and Foreman. Keep in mind, this whole argument started because I posted that Foreman claimed Holyfield and Ali hit about the same. The Foreman fight happened after Hoylfield's Dragonball Z power up so Foreman's statement would still be valid.

-Holyfield had a 25% KO ratio after the Tyson wins across 20 fights. If this experiment improved his power, whether gradually or in a short time span, why did his power seemingly fizzle out? Power is the last thing to go, and he was often facing opponents who couldn't hold a candle to the elites he faced in the early 90's.

 

So, two quick comments, since I don't have time for much more right now.

First, we do see exercises that combine upper and lower body action being used to improve movement chains in other sports. So Hatfield's methods aren't totally bizarre. Also, Hatfield was well qualified in the field. So it's not really DragonBall Z fantasy. It's probably debatable how much it accomplishes, but we're not talking crazy-hobo-streetcorner-guy pseudoscience here.

Second, if Hatfield's methods worked, we'd expect to see a gradual increase in Holyfield's power from 1991 to 1996. In this scenario, Holyfield's post-1996/97 stuff would be less relevant. Especially since Holyfield would have had declining abilities due to age beyond that point. It's safest not to view it as a single "power up," as you put it, but a slow upward ramp over 5 years. The Foreman fight would have occurred close to the start of that on-ramp.

So the question I'd be asking with the "Hatfield theory" is whether Evander's power shows any evidence of growth post-Douglas up to Tyson 1.

 

Well the short and long answers are both no.

As I said, he couldn't drop let alone stop Stewart, a guy he stopped previously, and couldn't stop Moorer who was both fairly hittable and not very durable. The only time he displayed any impressive power during this time frame was knocking down Bowe, who got up and proceeded to beat his ass. According to Bowe, the knockdown had less to do with raw power and more because Hoylfield tricked him into relaxing with some pitter patter shots.

It should also be pointed out Douglas and Rodrigues are the only ranked heavyweight knockout Hoylfield scored. As in, down for the full count (unless I'm forgetting something). It wasn't like he was blasting guys out before or during this time period of the Hatfield experiment and wasn't known for being a big hitter at any point of his career.

 

I am mostly in agreement, and because of this I find it even more odd (and erroneous) when Tyson said Holyfield was the best puncher he ever faced. Unless Mike wasn't factoring in as much brute strength as timing...but even then??? Confusing to me.

 

Does anybody really think Holyfield hit as hard as Lennox Lewis?

 

I can't find the quote, but I remember reading that he responded to the interviewer explaining that Holyfield didn't have the most one punch power, but that because he threw "so many of them" emphasizing the sheer quantity. In other words, Hoylfield's machine gun work rate left the most impression on him.

Smith, Bruno and so many other opponents often loaded up for one big shot and then backed off. They rarely landed more than 1-2 punches at a time (if they even attempted to throw 2 punches to begin with). People fought him very cautiously and didn't open up.

 

CC I think he has got you here my man.
While in theory Holyfield's training might have added significantly to power, unlike with his PED assisted muscle mass, he was likely near maxed out on that already. He gained some strength & lost some speed...

Holtyfield was a real trier, committed more fiercely to Big Shots than Ali or most boxer types usually did.
But his max power output never went very high-for a professional HW.
It was better than average. Never got to Tyson's level-who himself never hit as hard in pure horsepower as many you know-& many lesser fighters.

 

Yes he could have been the best due to timing, speed, accuracy & combinations.
No way he hit as hard as someone like Lewis-who did not open up on Holyfield as much.

 

Sure, Ali simply had obvious interest in other icons and their own signature claims to fame. As I said, he really seemed star struck to be alongside Clint on the Frost Show. Possibly a western fan in general, quoting lines like “Get out of Dodge….” then giggling in the presence of Eastwood. He was also impressed by Clint’s on stage display on the speed bag - something which Clint had obviously done before. On another talk show, Ali was extremely respectful and deferential toward Charlton Heston also.

If Ali was offered a role in a western, even a cameo, I reckon he would’ve said yes in a heart beat - say perhaps, in role of the “Kentucky Kid”, the fastest gun (and mouth) in the West, naturally. ; )

 

I'd expect the improvement to be most rapid early on and then slowing off. That's how it usually is when you start training something new.

 

Yeah "The Fastest Lip in the West".
Or if set in his (nick)namesake town, either the south or the midwest.
I understand that Louisville is basically at the border of both.

 

Thanks! Always nice with new info. But this forum tends to be too theoretical at times. We have before our eyes that Holy never became a devastating puncher, and actually less effective at stopping opponents if anything. The few stoppages he had after turning 30 were also often over guys that were lucid when stopped, but just outmatched.

 

Yeah, it’s seems a simple enough question:
“Hardest or Best Puncher Faced?” but really, as both a question posed and answer received it’s open to a scope of interpretation unless properly qualified at either end.

At least Mike T clarified himself re Holyfield and for that, we know exactly what he meant and his answer can’t necessarily be described as wrong.

If fighter A consistently hit you with numerous punches averaging say 8/10 in terms of power vs fighter B catching you with a few random 9/10s, one could easily and justifiably nominate fighter A as their answer -

UNLESS the question is more specifically framed - asking for the single, hardest punch(es) ever received - and the answer to same might not even necessarily be a high end or even reputed puncher per se - not all fighters let their true power potential hang out in general, punching for all they’re worth (ala Shavers) - but it doesn’t preclude their punching for all their worth on the random occasion and landing a singularly powerful and out of the ordinary (for them) shot.

 

Is it 100% proven those scars came from those punches tho?

For me Tyson wouldn't win let alone TKO Ali. He'd be dangerous but Ali would take him deep and drown him.

 

I seriously doubt that.

This makes a lot more sense.

I think Larry Holmes said something to the effect that Ali loved fighters like Mike, that they only knew how to come in and chase people, which played into his hands. Mike would end up getting hit way too much and his mind severely ****ed with.