How Was Holyfield Viewed As a Contender From 1988-1990?

Evander was considered a valid opponent back then but everyone still thought that Mike was unbeatable at the time.
They had a bit of a suprise when Holyfield outslugged tyson.

 

Pacheco is a tool.

 

Evander Holyfield was the only credible name left out there.

But he was a brawling cruiserweight -however excellent- and I'd say by and large was considered no more than the best challenger left for a man who would remain undisputed heavyweight champion as long as he wanted to.

 

I vote somewhere between "B" and "C". In the very late '80s, Holyfield was certainly regarded as Tyson's most credible challenger. But nobody really believed that Holyfield could beat Tyson. At the time, Tyson looked invincible.

 

anytime before prison i think tyson beats holyfield as long as he trains properly and dosent show up like he did against douglas just too big and powerful for evander at that time theres no way holyfield could give a stone away and beat pre prison tyson

 

I spoke to Alex Stewart in 2000, i was with him for a couple of hours talking at a small lounge in the Reno Hilton where he was working with Harold Sconiers, I asked him straight out , "Alex, who of all of the fighters you fought impressed you the most ?" Alex had faced Moorer, Foreman, Tyson, Holyfield twice.. " With no hesitation Alex said Holyfield by a mile, he hit harder and more solid than George and Tyson.. and he hit you more often too.. It surprised me.. He said when Tyson first signed to fight Holyfield he was under the influence that Tyson probable had the edge, until he tasted the power of both, after that he said Evander was hands down the more rounded better fighter ...

 

Stewart didnt make it 2:30 minutes with Tyson how could he say that?

 

Holyfield "hit harder", when he never went down against him, yet Tyson had him down three times, seeing stars and out, within two minutes of the first round?!

One thing I have learned is that the word of mouth from boxers themselves can be a very unreliable point of argument. You never quite know what their angle is or what exactly they mean. They say some crazy things. This is further proof.

 

Most of the guys Tyson fought were on the downslide of their careers. Evander was the only guy out there that was youthful/undefeated/pedigree and was on the rise. He was the windshield point of view and those other guys were in the rear view mirror. And later on Evander faced that himself with Bowe.

 

If you watch the fights though, Alex Stewart doesn't ever look particularly hurt against Tyson.
He got knocked down three times but he never looked out of it.
I think the fight was probably on the level, but Stewart was just overwhelmed by Tyson's heavy hands and aggression, rather than knocked senseless. Stewart should have practiced boxing off the back foot for that one ! :yep

 

Absolutely true.
Most of Tyson's opponents weren't "live" up-and-comers, and most of them were mediocre anyway or of dubious quality.

 

I disagree. Tyson was Berbick's first defense of the title. Tyson was the first guy to knockout Tubbs, who was well prepared. The first to knockout Thomas. The first to knockout Spinks. He took the **** out of a peaking Ruddock. Bruno was in his prime. Biggs was peaking when Tyson ruined him. As was Carl Williams.

True, these men aren't ATG heavies, but they were the best available, and Tyson was all of these guy's once in a lifetime shot at super stardom. They all badly wanted it.

 

Sick of this dog****.

You see Tyson fans talking about how he wasn't the same against Buster Douglas. How he was way faded in 96 (When Holyfield was more faded) but they say general things like Holyfield will engage recklessly. But if someone says Tyson was mentally weak they say. "What?" That's not "prime" Tyson. Yeah yeah. Holyfield didn't engage recklessly with Foreman, so why the hell would he with the invincible Tyson. He did with Bowe because he wanted credit, and his instincts kicked in when Bowe made it a dog fight. But he felt he wasn't given proper credit so he went on a limb. This idea Holyfield is incapable of fight smart when he was young to me is a dangerous and silly one.

 

After the Spinks fight, I figured no one was capable of beating Tyson. Holyfield was the best of the rest, but pre Douglas, I would of still picked Tyson inside six, and would of been shocked, because I think hindsight shows Holyfield probably beats a post Spinks Tyson.

 

Those guys had a lot of mileage on the odometer. They weren't 22 or 24 year old can't miss guys. They were old pro's that had been in the sport 8 years or more. They certainly were not going to be improving. The only contemporary that came up at the same time as Tyson was Biggs. I don't know about you, but I sure gave him zero chance going into the Tyson fight based on his form in his previous fight with david Bey. But Biggs held those hands low and that chin straight up in the air and Tyson is going to catch those guys.