Who will rank higher in the greatest of all time list Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield ?

Hmm...nobody beating down the door clamoring for it, so maybe I won't. I have a long history of putting lots of effort into projects that go virtually unnoticed around here.

 

In theory yes. On one hand I agree that it showed he failed to reign. On the other hand did it show how weak the era was that he could get it back? Or that they were all willing to fight each other? I agree that It's not the best record to set.

I still take Holy. I can't call Tyson's career better than the man who beat him twice. Plus his win over Seldon was so horribly orchestrated, the more they showed the replay the more the fans moaned of what they saw as a sure dive. Same for that Etienee fight. And one's guys's demise was based on decisions (holy)the other got beat up and stopped 5x.

 

I feel ya, brother. I have sweated many hours creating threads I'd hoped would interest various parties here, only to post them and watch them drop like a shot.

This content is protected

 

The X time champ has meaning. Look who else bares that distinction. He took the X time champ title from Muhammad Ali. Most guys who bear the cross down never have the strength to pick it back up again. They lose and it's a sign of their decline. The lion never roars again. But rumble old man rumble, Holy had more to give; so he starts whoopin' on these young pups, grabs his jock and steps again. Oh, Bowe beat him. Round two mother****er! He is the epidemy(sp?) of a warrior, the very ethos of boxing, bowed but unbroken, beaten but undefeated, never surrendering, never quitting, taking what you got, always coming back for more.

It's that heart of his which set him apart from Tyson. When Tyson lost a fight he lost his fire. He was never the same. He was stronger than Holyfield but he lacked the strength to pick himself back up. He wasn't as durable in body or spirit. He was faster but less deliberate. He was a whirlwind when everything went his way, but would fold in the face of adversity.

You know who also won and lost his title a lot? Ray Robinson.

 

You don't count pounds per inch when considering the difference. Tyson was one hell of stocky guy for being 5ft 10/11. I am not saying he was on steroids but you can't equate a 6ft 6 240 pound guy with being relatively the same as a 5ft 10 and 220 pound guy. The 6ft 6 guy should be around the 300 pound mark if you are to scale it up correctly. The 5ft 10 guy is clearly packing a huge amount of muscle onto a very small frame and it's very hard to achieve that size without having crazy genetics or steroids or both.

 

No you are full of ****, Tyson did not have 16 inch biceps .. maybe when he first hit the gym...

The whole point we are all making here is Mike Tyson is a huge guy based on his BF level.. obviously anyone can be big at any BF but its what you look like and weigh when you cut the fat off. So no one here is interested in Furys measurements because he carries lots of fat. But for the record I would place a bet with you that Fury has the same size biceps as Tyson, but tyson has a shorter arm so it does look bigger

And its not equivalent to compare arm sizes for a 6’9 guy to a 5 ‘10 guy

I am 5’11 myself so I am best able to jude about proportion as I came from 135 to 205 same BF

 

Furthermore, you replying to yourself seems to go unnoticed as well compared to the backlash I get if I do that...

 

IMO, Tyson never beats Holyfield. Holyfield's will and heart breaks Mike whether early or later in their careers.

 

What a tough questions. It really is. Many guys Evander struggled with Mike would have wiped out, yet Evander sucked it up and all around had greater skills. Bert Cooper would have been demolished by Mike. Mike made a bigger heavyweight impact than Evander, but that is fame. Evander was the greater fighter. Heavyweight? I would pick Evander barely maybe because he beat Mike at heavyweight, but if I think about it more than I might swing for Mike as far as dominance-something Evander did not have and almost lost to guys like Cooper for. It is hard. They are very close in rank. It is so difficult to pick. One day I could pick one and not the other. But generally Evander is the greater fighter. Evander's resume at heavyweight was spectacular. Evander beat Buster and Mike. Mike would beat Toney, who beat an older Evander. Mike vs. Bowe? I always thought Bowe was a big guy.Tough fight for Mike. My answer is hard to really see since they rank close.

 

So satisfying watching Toney punish him with uppercuts for that ****.

 

It's the heart that tilts it for me. If you were to breed warriors, human or animal, for any arena, heart is where you start.

 

Think Holyfield gets the edge. Tyson was more spectacular and more gifted in terms of power. But Holyfield was more versatile and fought better fighters. And as someone already mentioned, Holyfield's h2h victories, puts him over.

 

No Sir, you keep livin' up to your "Reckless" name.
You never had answers regarding my evidence that Tyson unlike Holyfield was big young (& poor), that there is no actual evidence he used, nor any opposing evidence from my hyperlink about what is the natural potential of lifters...Which he approached in muscle weight, but not upper body dimensions....

Also abs showing? That is not a good judge of body fat, though granted tyson's was pretty low in his prime.
Whatever balance of where my fat is deposited or being a situp champ when a skinny kid, I have had at least a faint, asymmetrical 4 pack-even with a waist as high as ~ 42"!

And Aydamn: but you cannot expect to have the genetics of some top athletes!
Even if you took steroids & got Tyson's size, you would never be able to train for his speed, right?
Tyson looked like an off-season bodybuilder-except as a pro his upper body would need to be somewhat bigger. What is "insane" & not within the realm of natural possibility is folks also under 6', competing at a lower BF level than Tyson ever was...And the better part of 300 lbs., or 300 like Ronnie Coleman was.
But this is leagues apart from what Tyson was.

But here is the broad case copy & pasted from a recent post...


But it is totally unfair & absent any evidence to indict tyson for using PEDs just because it was starting to become more popular then.
Anyone could have used. That does not show any rational, positive evidence.
In fact we have the evidence that while never tall, even at 13 when poor, not boxing, no access to or reason to use steroids Tyson was the better part of 200 lbs.

I have lifted for years.
Some dudes can get as big or bigger than Tyson naturally.
Mainly with lots of testosterone & a huge bone structure.
Others use & never get very big.
Also you cannot just take off a random amount of weight & assume what someone would be naturally...
Though I would say Evander-where there is mucho evidence of usage & had to work hard to gain weight-likely added ~ 10-15 lbs. of upper body mass after he first fought Bowe. A lot when his body fat stayed low & he never had much legs.

But no, just having muscle does not show someone is dirty.
Unless they grow so much, or it so fast, that the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming.
Primo Carnero ar under 6' 6" used to weigh in-lean-at 260, 270...And his career began before steroids were INVENTED.

You cannot assume guilt from era or proximity.

 

Well one is a ped cheater go figure...