I'm the only one who voted Holy? Vow. He did better against the same opp and decisvely beat Mike. The rest is speculation. You really have to give Tyson some serious leeway to have him.
If I was around at the time I would have put serious money on Tyson beating Holyfield when they were scheduled to meet in 91 before Tyson was thrown into jail an out of the ring for 4 years
That's not necessarily true. Tyson fought a younger version of Holmes and did alot better than Holyfield did against a 42 year old Holmes. Tyson destroyed Stewart in 60 seconds who gave Holyfield a very tough fight and went the distance with him in their 2nd fight. Tyson destroyed Tillman in 1 who went 7 rounds with Holyfield. They both beat Thomas convincingly but Tyson fought a better version of Thomas IMO. Holyfield beat Tillis more convincingly but Tyson fought a better version of Tillis. The big one is obviously Tyson losing to Douglas and Holyfield stopped Douglas in 3. But Douglas fought the fight of his life vs Tyson where as against Holyfield he was out of shape and realistically didn't turn up. Holyfield did do better against Lewis but Tyson was alot more past his prime than Holyfield was to be fair. Holyfield was less dominant than Tyson and i can't see Tyson losing to the likes Moorer or struggling vs the likes of Cooper, Dokes. Holyfield had better longevity but if we're talking about peak versions of each fighter i think Tyson does better overall against notable Heavyweights than Holyfield does.
Tyson was more dominant against people he could beat, Holyfield could beat a greater diversity of styles.
Yes, Holy found most of his wins against same opp tougher, but they were wins. The most crucial one of the common opp is that he won the title against the one Tyson lost the title to. And, sure, there is context, but it's not like he won a competitive fight and Tyson lost a competitive fight. Tyson lost nearly every round and was KO'd while Holy won practically every second against Douglas before stopping him. There's more than daylight between. The rest is speculation. But I have no problems at all seeing a one-armed Tyson, 32-year old with heart problems losing to Moorer. Because if we're going to use context, it should apply to both. And most importantly, of course, is that Holy actually beat Tyson. And, again, not by a small margin. And while Tyson had lost years in prison, Holy was older with much more wear and tear and had not looked nearly as impressive in previous fights. So here it takes even more good will towards Tyson to disregard the result.
Agree. And the latter weighs more heavily. Better to make 10 succesful but competitive defences than 9 dominant and 1 unsuccesful. Only in one of the cases are one still champion.
Reality is, they fought twice, Evander had the better of both bouts. However, If you are saying i can pluck a peak Heavyweight Holyfield from a timeline and a peak Mike Tyson from a timeline and say fight, id favour Mike Tyson.
The same opposition yes but some of those opponents were at different stages of their careers. Holmes was in his early 40s when he fought Holyfield and Holyfield didn't exactly look impressive in that fight. Look at this way a prime Holmes would be a considerable favourite over Holyfield based on how well a 42 year old Holmes performed against Holyfield. Would a prime Holmes be a favourite over Tyson ? probably not. My point is regardless of how you think a prime Tyson/Holyfield would go. I still think a prime Tyson would probably have better success overall against notable Heavyweights throughout history. And this is based on the eye test for me that Tyson looked alot more dominant and impressive during both fighters respective peaks.
Precisely. Holyfield was a dominant multi/weight unified champion. It’s like people forget his cruiserweight run and just remember his heavyweight career (which was pretty awesome as well) .