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

Razor Ruddock..

Was the biggest ****** fighter of the 90's, he fought Mike Tyson like a complete ******. He used no jab, and i don't think he knows..or had the skill to through straight Punches.

 

Razor Ruddock..

Was the biggest ****** fighter of the 90's, he fought Mike Tyson like a complete ******. He used no jab, and i don't think he knows..or had the skill to throw straight Punches.

 

People that are delusional Tyson fans are the reason there are so called Tyson haters, but how could you hold a grudge against Tyson when he was so exciting to watch, the problems arise when fans have no perception of where he should be placed based on what he achieved, its like banging your head against a brick wall and leads the people who are trying to bring some commonsense to the argument to say derogatory things about Tyson to try and get through to the hardcore Tyson fans who have skin like a rhino and a list of excuses, but they dont actually dislike Tyson, they are fans, they are just realists who can apply commonsense without letting their favour for that particular fighter cloud their judgment and make excuse after excuse.

Your argument falls down because not only was Holyfield envolved in many more tough fights than Tyson he was also not that successful after his wins
over Tyson.

You can twist it which ever way you want but he lost lost to Bowe, Moorer 1 ( and looked terrible ) before beating Tyson and then after beating Tyson he beat a past his best Moorer whom had been knocked out by an ancient Foreman and ironically enough had just as much if not more trouble with Botha whom you seem to think its a disgrace for Mike to look bad against, but Moorer is supposed to be a good win for Holyfield right? he then had a lackluster performances against Bean and should of lost twice to Lewis, he won 3 rounds of the fight with Lewis or should of anyway.

He quite clearly lost to Ruiz 1 st time and Ruiz got jobbbed of the decision, he then lost again to Ruiz even getting dropped and not long after came his schoolings at the hands of Toney, Byrd, Donald.

Holyfield's win over Tyson was the one last great performance that all great fighters have in them.

Holyfield's record was as sketchy as Mike's when it comes to wins!! difference being not only was Holyfield a better fighter overall he also had a better defence and better Boxing skills meaning he did not have to walk into the wheel house of his opponents to have success, so he did not get brutalized, he still isn't getting brutalized at his age now so you know there is merit to that argument, what are we to believe that he still isn't shot because he can be competitive with Valuev? he was just a better fighter than Mike with more skill.

There is no way Mike Tyson who fought Holyfield was any worse off than Holyfield physically and if he was after those fights its because Holyfield give it him in two fights. You would have to believe that he WAS! though wouldn't you because what would that say about Mike getting beat by a fighter to whom he had equal physical attributes left, it would lead you to face the reality of the situation.

Think about this you have already tried to tell us that Holyfield basically hung in there and waited it out and took advantage because/when Mike was tired, then you come with all these other excuses, if that is not trying to take away from the mans victory i dont know what is, that is an indication or your impartiality regarding Mike Tyson. Like its already been said you would not be so philological and giving Holy the benefit of the doubt if Tyson had, had his hands raised at the end would you?

Its nothing to do with hate more about delusional fans, that want to paint their own picture.

 

Fair enough.I assumed you noticed the conjunction.There seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding here.

 

OK this is my take on it.I think that Holyfield had greater torque on his single shots on the side.Tyson was by far the greater combination puncher.Holyfield was a better boxer on the outside.Tyson had a good jab,could lead to the body and far greater power midrange and on the outside and was extremely difficult to hit in his prime.

I think Tyson could take this with a disciplined strategy of using the jab,leading to the body,not letting Evander get too close and using a lot of feints.

By the same token I believe Riddick Bowe off all the fighters in the last two decades had the best offensive tools to beat Mike.That of course depends on whether he could stick to a gameplan.

 

Some think that any talented fighter with mental and physical toughness that survived the early rounds had Tyson's number.

 

I think this is oversimplified, but you do have a point. The first five was evenly fought (I had Tyson slightly ahead), but after the fifth Tyson faded very fast and Holyfield could just pick it up. I do think that Holyfield showed skill and smart tactical thinking as well as heart and resilience, but seeing how Tyson went missing after the first five it's hard not too se his lack of stamina and/or resilience as a big factor.

Thing is, Tyson never really showed he could keep going strongly after five rounds in a tough, competitive fight. One good punch landed against Douglas doesn't change that for me. This will always be a big question mark concerning Tyson and fans will continue to fill it with their own pre-conceived notions of the man.

 

Regardless of how Razor Ruddock fought the fights, (in which I believe your wrong with your assessment), it still showed ten times more resilience and toughness on Tysons part, than he did in the Holyfied fights, and that was the point.

 

You dont believe the Ruddock fights were competitive? You didnt see a determined will to win in contrast to Tyson basically giving up in the second half of the first Holyfield fight, and showing little boxing savvy?

 

Holyfield was a better fight than Tyson, at that time, regardless of his age and how many wars he was in. To say that Tyson was at his best and based off of those fights, Holyfield would have always beaten Tyson is ridiculous. Its not a foregone conclusion Tyson would win, but he was certainly a better fighter than he was in 96.

 

Tyson wasn't at his best but Holyfield was picked as an opponent because he was obviously and clearly already way past his best !
Holyfield still beat him up.

 

Hmmm...I'm thinking maybe Evander would be more of a favourite to win in a 15 round fight. :think

 

No, I don't think they were very competitive and the judges obviously didn't either. The notion that they were competitive fights might be because Ruddock landed more than most did on Tyson, but the truth of the matter is that Tyson dictated the tempo and was never really put under pressure.

 

If Tyson had kept Kevin Rooney, kept training properly, not been distracted by women/money/fame, not gone to jail for ****, then...he wouldn't be Mike Tyson would he? He'd be another person. And since we're judging the actual Mike Tyson vs the actual Evander Holyfield, not a hypothetical perfect alternate reality Tyson without any flaws vs the actual Holyfield warts & all, since the latter would be a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison.

Hey, I have an idea - what if Ali had Tyson's power, Marciano's training discipline, Gene Tunney's IQ and boxing smarts, and Ray Arcel as his personal fight strategist? What if Joe Louis had a granite chin and Jersey Joe Walcott's slickness and WWII had not happened? What if I was an invicincilbe superman who could knock guys out just by looking at them?

Sometimes when talking with Tyson fans I get the impression they think Mike would have been all these things combined, if only he hadn't...{insert random excuse here}.

 

Yeah.It's ridiculous isn't it,Jersey Joe?

Why do we even bother with these fantasy fights?