The fact that you said bowe was the only good opponent Holyfield faced just shows how bias your being, Tyson literally ducked old foreman, Tyson fought a Holmes that hadn’t had a fight in years and he didn’t train either, he admitted he was there for a check. At least Holmes was active when he fought Holyfield, plus Tyson fought nothing like Holmes, Holmes’ style just gives Holyfield problems. Tyson had a very tough fight with Tillis who Holyfield completely ran through, yea he got hurt by cooper but cooper hit harder than Tyson and Holyfield completely underestimated him, he dominated the fight aside from getting rocked. He also had serious heart problems against Moore, the rematch showed that Moore has no chance against a healthy Holyfield. You really think ring Magazine isn’t gonna be bias towards an exciting heavyweight ko artist? If the Heavyweight division is exciting it’s obvious most people are gonna turn their attention to that. Plus it’s a MAGAZINE we really shouldn’t add too much of it in the discussion Yes Holyfield did win a title, idk why your calling it a paper title like Tyson taking belts from Bruno and having a fixed fight with seldon are such accomplishments Ferguson, Tillis, Green, Frazier, Ribalta, and green were not world class, it’s called padding a record Tyson was making so many defenses and cleaning out the division because it was so weak, there is nobody on Tyson’s resume that Holyfield couldn’t beat, literally no one
People love to give excuses to their favorite fighter like ''But he understimaterd him'', or ''He didn't train'' but when it comes to Tyson than everyone who says the same things are suddenly a Tyson ''fanboy'' who only use excuses. I've even seen people debating on Tyson vs Lewis using the ''Tyson has never gotten up from a knockdown and won the fight'' but Lewis has not even done that **** himself. Why do people want Tyson to 100% perfect with not a single problem.
The problem is that Mike also never came back from a knock out to stop the other guy in a rematch. Lewis did, in fact I believe he's reknown for having ultimately beaten every man he ever faced as a pro. Pretty great imo.
Lewis got knocked out early in the fights by a single punch without taking a beating. Lewis didn't even have the balls to get close to the crack addict McCall. McCall had his guard down and barely even punched and Lewis didn't dare to get close to him. But I'll give him credit for the Rahman win because you could see that Lewis hadn't properly trained and was not doing that good and that he knocked the living **** out of Rahman in the rematch. But Tyson also faced adversity many times and still prevailed, like against, Tillis, Tucker, Thomas, Holmes, Ruddock, Botha. They were not afraid of Tyson but they still lost. Tyson was losing badly against Botha but he still managed to knock Botha out.
My point is not to say that Lewis is bad, I was just trying to explain how people say Tyson never overcame adversity when he has done that multiple times.
And many people are so picky with Tyson, they want him to be flawless just to be great. They always put down valid arguments by calling me or other people ''fanboys'' and say that we use excuses'' but then they proceed to use the same type of excuses when we come up with another argument.
Exactly. This has been my stance since joining this forum a decade ago. The excuses roll in for guys like Holyfield, "heart problems", "Hep C", "past prime", etc. But Tyson has to be perfect, right? To me, that's a sure sign that they think Tyson is better than they're leading on. They pick him apart to lower his ATG status.
My bad, not really what I meant to type. Since you claim Tyson's opponents weren't any good, I used Bowe to say well then Holyfield's challengers weren't any good, except for Bowe, the only fighter Holyfield beat that was any good, besides a past it Tyson. Who else did Holyfield defeat that was any better than Tyson's opposition? He lost to Lewis x 2, remember? Says the guy claiming to "love" Mike Tyson. Look, this has been debunked for years now. Foreman got handed a contract4 times and simply balked and walked away. To get to Tyson he had to deal with King. The 4th time he had to deal with Shelley Finkel in 1998. Do your research! Wrong again. The Holmes that fought Tyson in 1988 was 4 years younger, faster and slimmer than the version who fought Holyfield. How did Holmes get better feasting on guys like Tim Anderson, Eddie Gonzales and Rocky Pepeli? Holmes had known since 1986 that a Tyson fight was looming. He fought a 15 round exhibition to keep him active, prepared himself for 3 months and would never take a fight for a paycheck. The excuses started pouring out after Tyson steamrolled him. The only reason Holmes fought cans in his comeback was to copy the route Foreman took in getting a title shot. Then beat a top rated contender to get his title shot. He figured it was easy, and it was. Tyson fought Tillis in his first year as a pro. A nice little gatekeeper who gave Tyson trouble but it also proved Mike could go the distance. If Mike had never gone the distance in his prime you'd be claiming he never could. Holyfield fought a shopworn Tillis years later, not the same guy that faced Mike in 1986. Did Tyson not underestimate Douglas? "Yeah he got hurt by Cooper, but"...no, there's no but. Get Cooper in with Razor Ruddock and let's see how long Cooper lasts. Holyfield didn't underestimate him. Cooper just landed a solid shot and if he knew how to finish the show, Holyfield would've been KO'd. Holyfield showed guts in that fight, though. It's spelled M O O R E R. Serious heart problems from steroid abuse. "A hole in his heart", that Holyfield paid a doctor to quote. Those "heart problems", which were mysteriously healed by Benny Hinn, were most likely caused by inadequately cycling his steroids. After losing to Bowe in bout #1, Holyfield needed the extra muscle to compete with the big boys. Holyfield's rematch with Moorer showed how far Moorer had fallen since their first bout. Did you catch his gut? Moorer was 9 lbs heavier in their rematch. Now I don't put too much emphasis on poundage but Moorer was fat as **** in that rematch. Holyfield did show some nuts and guts, Moorer did too. I thought the heavyweight division wasn't exciting, hence why Tyson was so dominant over a bad division? Boxing magazines were our only source of info as fans back then, aside from the occasional newspaper article. Everyone has their bias but every mag had balanced views from their staff. And doesn't Ring have the "Lineal Championship" Belt attached to their name? That means something and most of these guys know more and have forgotten more than you'll ever know. Tyson wasn't overhyped, he did exactly what we all saw him do. An incredible run that no other heavyweight before or since has really paralleled. 37-0 with 33 KO's and 9 title defenses before his first loss. Going over this again? Holyfield won a belt because Lewis was stripped. It really meant nothing, everyone knew it was a sham. Tyson beat Bruno, who beat McCall, who beat Lewis. Ans Seldon wasn't a fix, at least I don't think it was, I just believe Seldon punked out and folded. Both belts threw Tyson at the top of the heap as the guy everyone had to beat to claim the best. Completely different when Holyfield "beat" John friggin Ruiz to claim a vacant title that he just lost in the ring to Lewis. THAT is why it's called a paper title. "World Class" means best in class, high calibre, first rate. The above mentioned fighters were ranked in the Top 10 to Top 20 of heavyweights...in the entire world. That's world class. Ferguson's only loss was to Carl Williams(after dropping Carl twice), the man many people felt beat Larry Holmes for the title. Tillis had fought for the world title and was a seasoned vet facing ranked opposition. Green's only loss was to former world champ Berbick and was ranked in the Top 10. Frazier's only loss was to Holmes and beat Bonecrusher, Ribalta and Tillis. Ribalta has losses to Bonecrusher and Frazier by Split and Majority decisions. After losing to Tyson went on a 9 fight winning streak before losing to Tim Witherspoon by Majority Decision. That's not padding your record. It's called gaining experience against world class opposition. If it was so easy, how come nobody else did it besides Mike Tyson? On paper I'd favor Holyfield against them, however, Holyfield struggled with many fighters the caliber of Tyson's title challengers. Tyson dominated the division for 3 years cramming in 9 defenses. Compare that to Holyfield's run with 3 world titles: loss to Bowe in 4th defense, beats Bowe then loses in his very next defense to Moorer. Beats Tyson then draws with Lewis in his 4th defense and loses in his 5th. Holyfield was handing his belts back and forth as the they went on a merry go round, similar to how the belts were playing hot potato until Tyson unified and reigned with an iron fist.
I don't care what he says. Holmes would never, ever tarnish his legacy by facing someone "only for the money". He fought Tyson to further his legacy and ranking in boxing history. A guy like Holmes who argues to this day about being the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time! Does that sound like a guy who wouldn't train or be given ample amount of time to face a young, undefeated dynamo looking to murder him?
Yes, I have to agree that it's hard to believe a champ who was already considered an ATG before the Tyson fight would want to tarnish his legacy.
That's why I think his excuses weren't quite correct. This isn't a prime Holmes, at all. But definitely a better Holmes than the Holyfield fight.
Again your saying Holyfield beat no one good except for bowe even though Holyfield has beaten 17 champions and 5 of them were hall of famers. Meanwhile Tyson has beaten 10 champions and 2 were hall of famers. Yes he lost to Lewis, but so did Tyson, also Holyfield was 37 giving Lewis the toughest fight of his career, yes Lewis admitted that 37 year old Holyfield gave him his hardest fight. Tyson was 35 and got knocked out by Lewis. Did my research and some sites say Tyson ducked foreman and vice verca, so let’s say we’re even on that. Even though Holmes was older he was active when he fought Holyfield. That’s better than the version Tyson fought, when holmes hadn’t had a pro fight in years. Also if Holmes said he was there for a check I’m going to take his word over yours, I think if he took the Tyson fight as seriously as your saying he did he would have had some tune up fights rather than an exhibition which is basically just sparring. Again, Holmes style just gives Holyfield problems, I actually think prime Holmes convincingly beats Holyfield. You are right about Holyfield fighting a worse version of Tillis, but I personally think Holyfield still easily beats the version that fought Tyson. If you disagree that’s fine but I’m gonna dismiss it because I really don’t want our debate to turn too much towards James Tillis Yes Tyson underestimated Douglas but he didn’t switch game plans or fight harder when he found out Douglas was there to win. Cooper vs ruddock would be a competitive fight, cooper was giving prime Mercer problems, McCall said Cooper was the most dangerous puncher he ever faced and McCall sparred hundreds of rounds with prime Tyson and fought Lewis. Ruddock was a one armed fighter with no defense and a shaky chin, he was KTFO by club fighter David Jaco, has a draw with another club fighter, and was almost stopped by smith. Cooper and Ruddock would be a competitive fight. Yes Holyfield completely underestimated cooper and payed for it. You really think Holyfield would try to slug it out and leave himself wide open if he was aware of Cooper’s power? He got rocked but came back and dominated the rest of the fight. Notice how when Tyson underestimates he gets knocked out while Holyfield fights harder. Either way Holyfield had serious heart problems in the fight and still managed to score a knockdown and push through the remainder of the fight. He was also past his prime during his rematch with MooreR lol. Yea moorer came fat but a past it Holyfield still put him on the canvas 5 times. Prime healthy Holyfield wouldn’t let Moore off easy if he has him down, he would’ve stopped him of it weren’t for the heart problems. Tyson made the heavyweight division exciting, everyone was putting their focus on him, the division was so lackluster that I bet people were begging for an exciting fighter like mike to come along, The division was still weak at the time, Tyson made the division exciting but his opponents weren’t that good. Of course Ring Magazine is gonna focus on Mike. He had a good run in a division that was lacking and that’s just the truth, he had his fun but was eventually gonna lose to the other elite fighters that were gonna come along. Either way Holyfield had a belt at 37. Bruno was never an elite fighter just because he beat McCall who’s career highlight is landing a lucky punch against Lewis, doesn’t mean we should rank Bruno’s win highly. Tyson takes Bruno’s belt, but Bruno was also past his prime and again was never that good. Then takes a belt from seldon which wasn’t even a fight. Tyson was 30 and never touches a belt again after that. At least Holyfield fought a prime opponent to get his title. Sorry Holyfield didn’t beat a past it Frank Bruno and get another belt from some guy who takes a dive in the first round. No its called padding a record, there’s a reason those guys couldn’t get titles in one of the weakest eras in history, Tyson “gaining experience” from bums can also be called padding a record. Nobody else was able to take over the division because nobody at the time was good enough to. If Holyfield and Tyson switched roles Holyfield would have done the exact same thing, he actually probably would’ve done more since Holyfield was way more disciplined and always trained hard unlike Mike. Your comparing they’re title runs even though Holyfield was fighting tougher opponents, like I said before Holyfield has beaten 17 champions and 5 were hall of famers. While Tyson has beaten 10 champions and 2 were hall of famers
