Tyson was great at knocking out old guys, no hopers and bums. Evander would have beat any version. Prime Tyson would have made it closer but the end result would have been the same. Guys like Rank Davis are continuing the tradition. It’s easy to look good when you fight bums or old guys past prime. Tyson was a media creation and hyped fighter but he was eventually exposed. He lost prime years in jail but was never as good as people liked to pretend.
I would take Mike in 88 to beat EH in 88 but one interesting common opponent is James Tillis who went the distance (10 rounds) with Mike in 86 but EH put away in 5 in 88. Maybe not as clear cut.
Agree. Doesnt destroy him. But he,d have beat him i think. Holyfield would give anyone a tough fight but his strengths would have been his achilles heel against prime tyson. Holyfield would have took him head on. To beat mike you kind of had to push him back...but back then when he was strong and fit and not just a big punch. No one would have pushed him back without getting hurt. Argument that buster did...but tbh tyson wasnt fit that night. His bad lifestyle led him to struggle with his fitness at that point. Doesnt matter tbh...they fought holyfield won both times thats all that really matters. I think the truth is tho tyson would have and should have been untouchable for years...just didnt have the discipline to live anything close to the life once he found success. Still done pretty well all things considering.
Mike Tyson, the only boxer to fall out of his prime at age 23...lol. The amount of romancing people do about this guy is insane. He lost to a journyman in Buster Douglas (The excuse: Oh well Buster had talent he was just lazy. He got super focused cuz his mom died just before the fight.) That is BS because first of all, she died 23 days before the fight so most of the work would have already been put in. Holyfield destroyed Douglas 8 months later. (The excuse: Douglas was 15 lbs heavier and was lazy and showed for a paycheck) You can spin a lot of fighters resumes to look good or bad, but what I don't get is how someone could say that Prime Tyson beats a prime Holyfield when a very shopworn version of Holyfield boxed circles around a still prime (age wise) Tyson who didn't have much wear in recent years. People bought WAY too much into the Tyson hype. Triple G was similar in how his hype reached mythical levels. They are "killers" right up until they get an opponent whose style isn't hand picked for them. Both great fighters but power and good matchmaking lead to irrational cheerleading.
People age differently. You must realize prison probably robbed him of his prime like it did Ali. Regardless i favor that Holyfield from 1996 to beat any version of Tyson, let alone prime Holyfield
Even the Tyson that fought Ruddock in 91 was far better than his 96 self. Just look at the footage, his combinations, movement, toughness, reaction to getting hit was completely different. When Ruddock hit Tyson with arguably harder punches than Evander did, Tyson didn’t get discouraged, even after getting hurt a few times he kept his focus. When he got hit after prison he reacted differently, he became anxious, discouraged. That’s part of the issue for me, he was a different fighter mentally as well. I lean towards a younger Tyson overwhelming Holyfield but never count evander out, at the end of the day I think they were pretty evenly matched and at their best the fight would have been 10 times better than the hug fest 96 version. 96 Tyson couldn’t keep up the pace, 97 he melted down, and that does put a mark on his all time status.
Tyson was exposed as a bully who failed the heart and desire test, when an opponent refused to be bullied. Holyfield really exposed Tyson in their two fights together, and I dont think a fresher Tyson would have beaten him.
not entirely true. There were a few opponents of Tyson’s that refused to be bullied but he still won, Tucker, Tillis, to name a few, Ruddock who actually hurt Tyson more than a few times. So the old argument, Tyson was a bully that folded as soon as a fighter mounted any form of resistance does not cut it in my view. I’m more inclined to believe it took the tremendous will of a fighter such as Holyfield to make a dent in Tyson’s confidence, not anyone could do this by merely hitting him back. After prison I’d a agree he relied on his reputation, but before that he was pretty able to deal with getting hit hard whilst returning fire. That aspect gets underrated by the detractors. As said his failures after prison detract from his all time ranking for me.
That’s why promoters love punchers, just get 5 ko’s in a row against average opposition and the myth will sell itself. Just look at Wilder, anybody could tell he didn’t have skills but a lot people were saying he was going to be the king of heavyweights.
For me Tyson reached his prime for Spinks and after that he started head hunting more and not using the elusiveness and movement that made him a great fighter. People need to realize before the likes of Givens and Don King got to him he really loved to fight and was dedicated to the sport completely. After prison he was not there for the love of it but only because what else was he going to do to make that kind of money. So as for if him and Evander fought prime for prime? If the Evander who fought Foreman and Bowe fought the Mike who fought say Holmes and Spinks. I can’t honestly decide because both have there reasons why they could pull out a win. But if forced to choose I’d probably pick Evander. I just think he was always the foil for Mike.
