Both considered substantial wins in the fighters respective career. Both opponents past their best. Holmes came out of retirement, but went on to fight closely with a lot of top fighters. Tyson was the first to knock him out cold in a one sided beating. Lewis fought somewhat close in both fights with Holyfield, more so in the second. Holyfield still active, but coming off a long list of tough fights.
Lewis win over Holyfeld was more noteworthy. Holyfield was still active. Holmes came out of retirement. So I would say Lewis win over Holy is more significant, but Tyson's performance over Holmes was more impressive.
Lewis over Holyfield. Holy was the reigning WBA & IBF champion and in his previous few fights had had career defining wins over Tyson as well as his revenge fight with Moorer, and had just beaten Vaughan Bean his IBF mandatory challenger. Holmes was coming off two losses, albeit one controversially, to Michael Spinks and near on two years of retirement
Yes, but you must consider what went down after those fights. Holmes went on to competively fight against Holyfield, beat Mercer and almost win the title against Mcall. Holyfield on the other hand was very inconsistent in his future fights losing more than he won.
Except for Donald and Toney(*) the only guys who beat Evander after this were guys who were or would be titlists (Ruiz, Byrd, Ibragimov, Valuev) and he beat Rahman and Oquendo. Holmes lost to McCall, Nielsen(#) and Holy all titlists too however Mercer who was inconsistent himself is the only half decent victory he has in his second career. * it can be argued that Toney was a titlist also # this fight was controversial, so too was the Valuev fight for Holy so i consider them both losses as does the record books.
Good points, but I wouldnt put those guys on the level of say Mercer or Holyfield. Holmes didnt lose to Nielson that was a robbed decision. Holyfield didnt just lose those fights either he was embarassed by Byrd, Toney, Ibragimov, and Donald. Point being that Holmes was in some good competitive fights against solid guys, he wasnt beaten one sidedly like Holy was by the above.
Even ish. Lennox fought very hesitantly against Holyfield. Whether it was what he needed to do it or not, the Tyson win over Holmes was far more definitive and devestating. So it evens out in my opinion.
Holmes wasn't fighting at the same level of comp. that Holyfield was. He mostly padded his record with stiffs in between the fights with Mercer, Holy, and McCall. Holyfield beat Rahman and Oquendo, and many thought he was robbed of winning another title against Valuev. He also succeeded in winning another title (vs. Ruiz), albeit a meaningless alphabet one. He basically had just as much success in his later career as Holmes did.
Agreed - in terms of accomplishments somewhat equal, however, considering Holyfield was on a winning streak, had knocked out Tyson twice two years earlier, avenged the Moorer loss by 8th round TKO and held two belts. Holmes, on the other hand, went 1-1 with Spinks on a fair scorecard, and had been inactive for two years. So, to sum up: -Going into the bout, Holyfield was more impressive than Holmes in recent years. Edge: Holyfield. -After the fight, their accomplishments are about even. Edge: even. Total edge: Holyfield.
So your saiying its about even? Personally I think they are about equal myself in accomplishments, but it goes to show you how overshadowed Tysons career is by his misdoings in and out of the ring. On a side note, could Rahman or Oquendo beat Brian Nielson?
No, I think Holyfield is a clearly better win. He was the clear top rated opponent at heavy, held a couple of titles, and coming off big wins over Tyson and Moorer. He would win another title after that, arguably robbed of winning another one against Valuev, and generally have at least as much success (if not more) as Holmes did post-Tyson, while fighting at a much higher and more consistent level of opposition. I don't see why not. No one knows will happen until the fighters actually get in the ring, but I would make both of them the favorite over Nielson.
tysons win over holmes is not noteworthy, are u kidding me. thats like giving larry credit for beating ali. give me a prime holmes vs prime tyson or prime ali vs prime holmes. i think when we discuss boxers and how they would compare to another fighter not in the same era , it s best to speak of them in their prime. in my opinion) will somebody please for the love of god please invent a boxing time machine.