Holyfield...Did he just have Tyson's number?

That does not necessarily answer me question unless yo mean no:huh

Well yes because i dont consider that to a grueling fight, Mike beat up Ruddock he did not have to suck it up because he was not getting hit back and asked questions of like he was from Douglas & Holyfield.

Its like i said before, Ruddock threw a few flurries at the end of a couple of rounds but the story of the fight was Mike using Ruddock for a punch bag.

Could you answer my question again though please.

 

No he didn't, he stood and fought him on the inside and matched skills and strength with him there. He rocked him in the 2nd round of their first fight and clearly won the first two rounds of the rematch. He didn't just "wait" for Tyson to get tired.

It's not "ridiculous" because Tyson was much closer his best at this time than Holy was. The whole boxing world agreed that this was Holy's long-awaited chance to prove that he was better than Tyson, and probably coming about 5 years too late. Why should that be rewritten just because he did what no one thought he could still do?

Exactly.

If the loser of this rivalry didn't happened to be named "Mike Tyson" you wouldn't see people bending over backwards to make the kind of excuses they are here.

Holy had lost far more of his stamina by this time than Tyson had, and he had always relied on his stamina much more to win fights than Tyson had.

Exactly.

Having an uppercut alone doesn't make someone a good infighter. There's a lot more skill and even toughness(mental and physical) involved than just that.

Exactly.

Doubtful, seeing as he "beat" him only in a close fight with some questionable scoring, and was whupped in a rematch with an older and even more shopworn Holy.

Possibly.

He was **** against Moorer and the third Bowe fight, but Bowe was "that good" in their first two fights.

Not really.

Why not? You're basing your assessments on your own speculations and pre-conceived notions rather than what was actually proven as these fighters' careers unfolded.

 

Yes I believe Holyfield had more in the tank. He went 12 rounds with Lewis twice didnt he? Tyson couldnt fight past 6 rounds. For the record Ruddock landed some substantial shots on Tyson, and Tyson showed some serious resolve fighting through them. Tyson wasnt half as active in the Holyfield fight, with movement and punches thrown. I dont really understand how you cant see the differences.

 

It shouldnt be rewritten, it should be remembered that this was peoples impressions going into the fight

but surely what you know after watching the fight is that they were wrong, it was a good time for evander to face tyson, edivently.

 

All these people now claiming Tyson had less left than Holy - Where on earth were they before the fight?? Where were they when Holy was being dismissed as "shot" and a set-up for Tyson, and Tyson entered the ring as at least a 6-1 favorite? How much money did they all make by betting on Holyfield?

 

I made a nice piece of change on that fight! I even made a little on the second fight. But then I would have bet on Holyfield years earlier, too. Hell, I would bet on Holyfield again now if Mike came back!

 

Why? How does whoever wins "change" what each man's status was and was already acknowledged to be coming into the fight? That's two separate issues.

Holy's win just proves that he could win in spite of the disadvantages he was under, and that he was that much better of a fighter than Tyson that he could do that.

 

Was Evander "shot" at that time?

 

I dont really get this point, whether people realised before the fight or not doesnt affect whether its true or not.

 

Are you saying we should judge fighters condition on pre match hype, betting and 'status' rather than something like I dont know....how they performed in the fight.

And yes I agree with you Holyfield was evidently much better at that time thats why he won.

 

Well thats me done trying to argue commonsense.

 

Shot, or at least close to it.

 

So Moorer and Bower,but not Lewis should get any credit for defeated him twice.

 

Why would that prove Holy was "less shot" than Tyson? Why wouldn't it just reaffirm that he was a better fighter to begin with? That's if you even think it has to prove anything at all.