i think when holyfield fought bert cooper it was a second substitute for tyson who was going to be incercelated
Do I got it right, you are just ignoring half his career? Maybe, who knows. It doesn´t matter what he could have done but what he did though.
No. I dont consider the Tyson that fought Holyfield the same Tyson that fought Spinks for example. I dont think they were even close to being the same fighter.
Interesting spelling for incarcerated but yes it was and Tyson would have finished Holyfield had he him hurt him like Cooper did. Tyson was in training for Holyfield with the fight signed but he went away.
I dont think its a good barometer of Tyson's character or mental fortitude at his best, considering he was in as grueling of a fight with Ruddock, where he was still a fighter who had slipped quite a bit from his peak.
Hm, I disagree with the first part but agree with the latter one. Tyson was always mentally fragile and it wasn´t as if the Ruddock fights were wars. He was slipped against Holyfield but I don´t think it would have looked much different prime for prime.
Well just like Lewis didnt have someone with half a brain in his corner to tell him not to try and knockout Oliver Mcall, Tyson didnt have guidance in his corner either after jail. I believe Tyson regressed after prison because he lost that self confidence from not having the proper mind in his corner anymore and was not brought back properly from a technical aspect. I think the Tyson of 88 would have done a number on any version of Holyfield. Tyson was hit far harder by Ruddock than Holyfield as well, and his fitness let him down just as much as his lack of skills. The Tyson of 90 would not have been stopped by Holyfield. Tyson was stopped because he was not prepared to fight a long grueling fight. In 1990 he was.
Honestly, I find more irritating the borderline casual fans who refer to "prime Tyson" as this unstoppable H2H beast. I usually find myself at an embarassing loss for words in a suchlike scenario.
I just don't understand the fighters who you guys consider the greats... when you like to stand there stationary and throw right hands one after the other all day long, and yeah you knock some people out with them and also you fought circa 1940 or 50 or 60 or even the 70's your the best ever cause why your throwback or retro or some other kinda bull****.... bottom line the best fighters boxing has ever seen have come with in the last 25 years... seriously I'm sure everyone has trained cause in here everybody is a real fighter now days (**** that) so in that case scientific improvements in nutrition and training don't mean **** you fellas should now that (sarcasm)... ****ing internet fourm... I'm a shithead for even wasting my time voicing my opinion in here sooooo.... Tyson on film better than anybody ever period and all the other hypothetical bull**** goes right out the window... but maybe you fellas can change my mind though and tell me how some ole flat footed, slow mutha****a even on film looks to be the greatest.
At least you made one accurate point! And your follow up point about not wasting your time here will not only benefit yourself, but we will be very thankful for your absence as well!