Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

Absolutely.

Depending on your critiea.

 

nope, while holyfield was inconsistent, he fought better competition and did better when he fought them for the most part. not to mention he beat the hell out of tyson when they fought head to head.

tyson was looked more impressive in his prime, because he was more talented then holyfield especially when it came to power and speed and overall raw talent. but tyson's prime was only 3 or 4 years, what about the rest of the body of work. that all goes to holyfield.

 

At Heavyweight, no doubt. But overall P4P ranking? Definitely harder to due, considering Holy's CW reign/run.

 

Yes,

Just because a fighter lost a series to another, does not necessarily mean that he has to be ranked lower. For example, I rate Holyfield higher than Bowe on an all time list, regardless of the fact that he lost two out of three to him.. A similar case can be made when comparing Holyfield to Tyson. Now, I often go back and forth in terms of where I rate those two in relationship to one another, but a case can certainly be made for Tyson being rated higher.

 

Prime for Prime Tyson is superior to any heavyweight, even the steroid assisted cruiserweight of Holyfield.

 

Holyfield not only cheated in the ring ( headbutts that cut , dazed, and almost KO'd heavyweights)


but he also cheated outside of it (steroids).

 

I see your point, but isn't the steroid use also cheating inside the ring?

 

Why would a fighter cheating outside the ring matter if it didn't affect what happened in the squared circle? How could it even be classified as cheating? Don't be so literal. :tong

 

If you're being objective: NO.

If you have a favourite then you can argue anything.

 

Personally I rate Holyfield higher. Holyfield has a superior resume and longevity. The only thing Tyson has going for him is his dominance. Add to that that Holyfield beat Douglas who beat Tyson and Tyson himself and did better against Lewis than Tyson and I don't think you can justify ranking Tyson above Holyfield.
But you could argue that with Tyson's dominance and raw talent and Holyfield's inconsistency there is an argument. I can see it but I don't think it's strong enough to rank Tyson above Holy.

I rate Holyfield alongside Frazier, Foreman and Liston between 8 and 11 and Tyson alongside Dempsey, Wills and Langford between 12 and 15.

 

p4p; Evander

At heavy its what you like. Holyfields longevity gets it for me I have him above Marciano and Tyson in my HW rankings (last time I checked)

 

Yes, it can be justified.

Not that I necessarily agree, but I'm usually pretty open-minded about things like this and don't have a problem with it, as long as it argument is reasonable.

 

sure it can. what is the criteria ? h2h or p4p. personally i believe that the tyson that fought mike spinks would have won from any version of holyfield.