tyson holyfield 1

Had that scenario played out against Tyson in 88, things would have been different, thats all Im saying and thats my opinion, in fact I dont think Tyson even allows Holy to cut him up and butt him the way he did, he carried his head a lot lower in the past, similar to the way Holy fought Tyson. Whether you agree with it, thats up to you. :good

 

If Holyfield was purposely head butting then why wasn't any points deducted in any of the fights? Both fights were reffed by great referees but neither deducted a point for "intentionally" head butting.

Holyfield was just ruffing Tyson up on the inside and Tyson couldn't handle it.

The first fight, Tyson's cut was caused by an accidental clash of heads.

The 2nd fight, Tyson's cut was caused by a Holyfield hook. Tyson just couldn't take gettin' beat up by Holyfield so he looked for a way out.

Tyson fans always want to use Holyfield purposely head butting an excuse for their fighter losing. Holyfield always knew how to beat Tyson and that was standing up to him and not fighting going backwards.

 

You're right Holyfield never intentionally used his head in fights.

 

You haven't disproved anything either man.

It is literally all opinion. Nobody can know what went through Tysons mind that night but Mike.

But what I have stated that is fact, is that after he bit once and got deducted two points and warned he was on the threshold of DQ, he bit again. That can't be argued: It happened.

Why, we can argue till the cows come home. But Mike bit TWICE. He wanted out. I don't think it was cowardice, myself. But Tyson ended the fight intentionally as the loser. Tyson fans argue it was some badass no mas, his detractors argue it was cowardice and a quit job, I just see it for what it is. There is no way anybody can say he didn't want a way out, because he made one and he took it. He intentionally committed the two worst fouls in recent boxing history, one after another. He knew what would happen. Mills Lane was clear. Andrew Golota did the same thing.

We have to agree to disagree on the reasons why, but what I said above is fact.

 

This content is protected

Rahman is not amused.

 

Correct, Mills Lane stated numerous times they were unintentional butts.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE8OzWsES4[/ame]

8:30.

 

What a ****ing disaster that night was. Tyson was in much better shape, and he started to settle into that fight. Its ashame it had to end that way, I think it would have been a great fight, much better than the first which was a boring wrestling match.

 

Don't spin me, man. Yes, Smith was a sturdy guy and Tyson certainly can't be expected to blow out everybody. But your the one putting that burden on him by suggesting he would KO 96 Evander.

It was obvious even than that Tyson had some glaring holes in his game that were never addressed and ready to be exploited by the right fighter. I can't realistically see Mike KOing Holyfield when lesser fighters were more crudely utilizing the same things he did to spoil Tyson's offense in 96 to survive the distance.

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

I told you thats my opinion, take it for what you want. Tyson was more active, in better shape, and more of a two fisted elusive puncher. He still took Evander to the brink of exhaustion in 96 throwing one punch at a time.

If taking him the distance and losing one sided unanimous decisions was exploiting his weaknesses, Id take that all day for my fighter. Guys were learning how to survive against Tyson, not expose any weaknesses, they were losing one sided fights, but robbing him of a crowd pleasing dramatic finish. :barf
I would also add Tyson was still improving as a fighter. He looked great against Tubbs and Biggs, showing alot more dimension to his game. Two fighters who were certainly capable of exposing those so called holes.

 

He got beat up in the first fight and didn't look for a way out. Tyson did complain but he was taking a beating but still hung in there. It can be argued that Douglas whopped him worse and I don't recall Tyson looking for a way outt there. I see it as a "you get what you give" kind of scenario. Boxing isn't pretty and will have roughhousing & fouling at times so Tyson did it back of course in the worse way. I admit Tyson had some nerve crying about fouls against Holyfield. He of all fighters shouldn't have done that.

 

Well he sure didn't intentionally use his head against Tyson that's for sure. He just whooped him.... and he was beating Tyson up really bad in the rematch. Tyson just lost it because he couldn't handle getting whooped by Holyfield 2 times in a row. It was a huge blow to Tyson's ego, because he had just gotten out of prison and was on a terror.

Then comes along Holyfield, who Tyson said after beating up that quiter Bruce Seldon "Holyfield doesn't know what he's getting himself into".

So here comes Holyfield (who I thought looked good against Bobby) with his huge traps (like he just finished from lifting weights) grinding his teeth, while bumpin' his gloves together while his name was being announced.

As a Holyfield fan, I knew he was going to smash Tyson and that's what happened.

 

As a Holyfield fan too I disagree. He was using his head intentionally and I would say the second fight was somewhat even before the butt.

 

Evander Holyfield beat Mike Tyson in every department.

Rough House tatics

Boxing..

Inside fighting..

And mentally...

That is why Mike Tyson was so pissed of and angry about this defeat. Mike Tyson was still a Winner back theN......

The Mike Tyson that Holyfield fought was in better shape, than the Tyson that Buster Douglas fought in my opinion.

 

No. ****ing. Way. :nono

 

I don't think Tyson fans should whine about Holyfield being dirty. Tyson had been just as dirty in the past with elbows, low blows, headbutts, and i think he even tried to break peoples arms 3 times.