Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

Which of these three fighters took a four year layoff before returning to boxing and facing Holyfield? LOL..

Not defending Tyson because I dont rank him over Holyfield but you seem to be making a weak case in discrediting Tyson.

 

This is a good summary, but do you think Holyfield was past his best when he fought Riddick Bowe the first time, because it seems both fighters were at their respective peaks when they first fought???

 

Tyson didn't "return to boxing and face Holy," he had fought four times in the span of a year leading into the first Holy fight. He was as active as any HW in the division at that time.

Only if you think not going along with revisionist spinjobs is "weak."

 

Interesting perspective. I take it you feel Tyson returned to boxing as the same fighter he was when he left??

 

Nope. Holyfield was next to fight the winner, who was Douglas. It's not as if Douglas never had a fight lined up after he beat Tyson. I could see your point if Douglas simply choose Holyfield rather than give Tyson a return. But Holyfield was due to fight the winner. Perhaps Douglas would have fought Tyson in a rematch had he won against Holyfield.

:good

 

I'm amazed the amount of times certain fans have this little thing in their heads about a fighter 'refusing' to fight another simply because they never fought.

De La Hoya ducking Tszyu is another classic example.

 

Thats right Holy was the mandatory, Douglas had to fight him. Beating Douglas after Holyfield beat him the way he did, would have done nothing for Tysons legacy regardless of what you think.

 

Yes it would've. Beating a guy who beat you and proving outright that a loss was a fluke is always better for a legacy than never rematching the guy and leaving it up to speculation whether or not it was a fluke. Joe Louis would not have as impressive a legacy as he does now if he never beat Schmeling in a return, and Lennox Lewis' legacy wouldn't be nearly as well-regarded as it is today if not for the distinction that he beat every man he ever faced at some point.

 

I don't think Holyfield was washed up when he fought Bowe but I don't think this was Holyfield at his very best either.

Holyfield had sparred with Bowe a good bit. Holyfield used to make Bowe quit. My point is he thought very little of Bowe's abilities and underestimated him. Holyfield fought Bowe toe to toe and came up a bit short. Bowe did get away with countless lowblows and never lost a point in this fight.

In round 11 a shot to the back of Holyfield's head forced Holyfield to use the ropes to keep from going all the way down. This resulted in a 10-8 round for Bowe. I don't think Bowe should have gotten credit for a knockdown. With that said, I still would have had Bowe up by a point... 115-114 (6 rounds to 5 with 1 even)

Holyfield was in great shape mentally and physically for the rematch even if Bowe wasn't. I think Holyfield may have stopped Bowe if not for the "Fan Man" incident.

The 3rd fight was insane. Holyfield seemed ill in the fight but he still had Bowe almost out in the 6th. With plenty of time left in the round after a stunned Bowe got up from a hard knockdown... Holyfield was spent and couldn't finish Bowe. My 7 year old son could have finished Bowe off at that point. Holyfield never did get a 2nd wind and was stopped in the 8th.

 

there was no point to fighting douglas because he had lossed the title holyfield thus tyson was signed to fight holyfield. tyson tried to get an immeditae rematch with douglas but as already stated, hoylfield already had first dibbs on the winner. and besides, douglas after losing the title, quit boxing for 6 years. and tyson tried to fight douglas again years later but douglas got koed by lou saverese in 98' , so tyson ended fighting saverese.

 

Tyson and Holy didn't sign to fight for nearly a year after Douglas lost the title, during which time Tyson fought three other times. If Douglas was still active in that time, there would've been plenty of point to the fight for Tyson, which would've been to avenge a very decisive and embarrassing career loss (his only one to that point).

 

McCall and Rahman had both better careers than Douglas and losing to them, and avenging those defeats, is still better than losing to a 42-1 underdog. Hindsight is not allowed in history. :bart
Danny Williams and Kevin McBride are ATGs now :huh

 

Tyson was the one who made Douglas that big of an underdog wouldnt you agree?

Douglas was certainly a capable fighter and fought a great fight against Tyson.

Douglas also held a decisive win over Mcall before facing Tyson. What would have the odds been on a Mcall Tyson fight at that time?

The odds had little to do with James Douglas the fighter.

 

True, Douglas was a good fighter. I think he was ranked as high as #4 by one of the organizations... I know that doesn't really mean anything though. Douglas had went 6-0 (4) following his loss to Tony Tucker and leading up to his fight with Tyson. He had beat the likes of Jerry "Wimpy" Halstead (KO9), Oliver McCall (W10) and Trevor Berbick (W10).

He had outboxed Tony Tucker for much of the fight but ran out of gas and was stopped in round 10. Douglas had stamina problems in many of his fights. He did have respiratory problems.

It was no surprise that he was big underdog vs. Tyson though. Most HWs would be in those days. McCall would have been a huge underdog as well, not many people even knew of McCall back then.

Anyway, Douglas barely trained for Holyfield and retired for about 6 years following the loss. It's not Holyfield's fault Douglas came to fight like that. Holyfield was ready for war. Holyfield wanted to fight Tyson for several years but had to settle for Douglas. He did what he had to do vs. Douglas.

 

Theres a reason Douglas didnt fight for nearly a year and thats because of all the litigation surrounding the events of the outcome of the fight and Douglas himself, it had nothing to do with Tyson not wanting the rematch which seems to be what you're implying.
Evander Holyfield was the mandatory challenger, Douglas had to fight him to retain his titles, plus he was offered a **** load of money he wouldnt have made with Don King.
And to your other point, youre right technically Tyson beating Douglas would be better than not fighting him at all, but if one could possibly look outside the box for once, and use a pretty fair judgement knowing Douglas, Evander Holyfield took most of the luster off that big win with the outcome of their fight. That along with Douglas' previous performances made it pretty easy to sum up that it was back to the old Douglas.
Douglas was a good fighter and had a decent little run rededicating himself to boxing topped off with a motivating life event and a great performance against a poorly prepared unfocused Tyson. That seemed to be good enough for Douglas as proof by the way he showed up and performed against Holyfield. If he would have showed half the heart he did against Tyson and still lost to Holyfield, he probably would have gotten a rematch with Tyson shortly after.
Either way losing to Douglas seems to be overblown anyway. Douglas was a capable fighter. He had good skills and everyone knew it. The question was dedication and heart, which he showed in the Tyson fight and performed like an elite fighter for that one night.
I talk about Riddick Bowe a lot, because it was a similar scenario, only Bowe was more consistent than Douglas and had a bigger fighting heart but another heavyweight that never fufilled his fullest potential.
Most people knew Douglas had the skillset to be up there with the best of them, but he didnt have the fighting guts to carry them out.