Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

And Douglas had a hell of a lot more talent than than Rahman and mcall could ever have. Infact most of Tyson's opponents in the 80's did.

 

there you go, you said it yourself. if douglas was active. douglas quit boxing for 6 years after holyfield koed him. he became a non-factor.

 

Douglas won one million dollars in the Tyson fight and received twenty million for the Holyfield fight to put that in perspective a house that costs two million today would have cost three hundred thousand back then. I understand Douglas is still a wealthy man after investing in property, although if any one knows different please post.

 

I've seen those fights. Holyfield in fact was landing his overhead right in his fight against Holmes,but didn't have the power to put away Larry.In Holmes fight against Ray Mercer,Mercer was continually outboxed and thrown off balance .He couldn't string together accurate punches.

I think Holmes with a little more preparation could have got into better shape for his fight with Tyson,but I can't see how he was particularly better when he faced Holyfield or Mercer.

BTW I'd say the first knock down Tyson inflicted on Holmes to start his downfall was incredible.The one,two combination-the first punch of which knocked away Holmes' right hand protecting his jawline-was genius.

 

I never said Douglas wasn't a capable fighter. But he was not even a fringe contender historically. McCall was not much more than a sparringspartner back then, he only became a known name years later. Hindsight isn't allowed when judging historical events.

 

Talent means **** if you aren't able to use it. And where Doulgas and most of the 80s fighters underachieved, Rahman and McCall overachieved. I think more highly of two than of most of the 80s fighters because of that.

 

Maybe it was a little easier to overachieve in the 90's? :good

 

Not even a fringe contender? What are you talking about he was always in the mix throughout the latter part of his career. He fought Tucker for the title and lost and then worked his way back into contention by beating Berbick and Mcall and earning his shot at Tyson. Anyone who watched Douglas knew he was a pretty well rounded fighter, certainly moreso than Rahman.

 

The 90s were a beter era for hws than the 80s and by quite a bit.

 

Read again what I wrote. Look out especially for the little word "historically" :deal

 

Disagree on your assessment of the 90's vs 80's. Definitely more skilled technicians in the 80's. The 90's was filled with a bunch of big uncoordinated oafs.
I dont get what you mean historically then? Douglas fought for the title twice over his career. Historically that would make him a solid contender of his era??

 

With historically I mean that, when you throw in all contenders from all eras he would be a fringe contender. At best.

The 90s overall are a better era than the 80s with it's fat, drugged, unmotivated, underachieving hws.

 

To misquote a nursery rhyme,when the 80s fighters were good they were very good,when they were bad they were horrid.

To a certain extent,yes.The advent of HGH in the 90s would have meant that fighters could maintain mass and keep off body fat with less intensity of training.It would also allow say a cruiserweight like Holyfield to get a heavyweight bone structure past the age of thirty .The danger,of course, was there of fighters failing to develop their boxing skills and losing their mobility because of excess mass.

When a 90s fighter like McCall suffered crack cocaine withdrawal symptoms in the ring against Lewis,
he still looked to be in good physical-if not mental-nick.

 

They were underachieveing because Tyson beat most of them, that's why. None of them came in out of shape when fighting Tyson, NONE. And the 80's had way more talented heavyweights than the 90's did. Great ameuter credentials, and loads of athletic prowess.

 

Holmes and Tubbs could have come in better shape against Tyson.

My point is this:I dont think when we hit the magic number 1990,the heavyweight division became magically better (or worse for that matter).

The elite contenders of the periods-before and after the collapse of boxing as one of America's major sports-had different strengths and weaknesses.

Personally,I find the earlier heavyweights more a interesting bunch.