Tyson was nowhere near what he used to be in the 80s. Sure, he wasn't washed up, like he was against Lewis, but nowhere near his best either
As I said, revisionism and with the benefit of hindsight. He ripped through Bruno and Seldon and was expected to do the exact same thing to Holyfield who looked ordinary against Czyz. People genuinely feared for Holyfield’s well-being heading into this. The LV commission made him undergo a Battery of tests at the Mayo clinic, just to ok him for it.
Benefit of hindsight and revisionism are totally different concepts. It’s totally accurate to say that Tyson was significantly worse than expected (but still good) going into the Holyfield fight and that the opposite was true for Holyfield.
He's my solid #3 All-Time. He has 8 wins over Lineal Heavyweight Champions and drew once. And he has 4 losses against Lineal Heavyweight Champions, and all of those losses were very competitive. That's 8-4-1. And he was older than his opponent in many of those fights.
To be fair, he said that he fought just about everyone. And when he said everyone, he obviously meant the best fighters of his era. The fighters you’ve listed are a mixture of guys who weren’t relevant or viable at the time. He never fought the K Bros either. But he was badly faded by the time that they were both prime.
Hadn't done 12 rounds since 91. Hadn't shown top form since 88. Looking good for four rounds against Frank Bruno doesn't mean you're back.
If he hadn't lost to Moorer and Bowe, been gifted against Lewis, and fought two old men and a fat quitter, it would be 2-2 with one win by DQ while using steroids.
But you’re saying that with the complete benefit of hindsight. Absolutely NOBODY else thought that at the time, hence 1 out of 40 odd journalists taking Holyfield for the win. If anyone was thought to have slipped more, trust me, it was Evander.
You can go down the list and do this to almost anyone's record, other than Ali. Did Louis really beat the best Baer and Schmeling? Who were Liston or Holmes' really great wins at all? And on and on. Evander has an official win over prime Bowe, he beat a Foreman that went on to win a title, the Tyson that he beat was a guy that everyone was picking to beat him, etc. Damn, I love Marciano, but you are going to beat down Holy's record an not mention that all of Marciano's best were well on the down side?
Let's erase hindsight. Here you go: https://www.google.com/shopping/pro...376881_0,prmr:1,pid:10027977980563376881,cs:1
I am in a thread that asks " Why is Holyfield considered a top 5 HW ? " I don't think he is generally considered a top 5, nor should he be. And I was replying mainly to this assertion you made earlier in the thread: In my opinion, he doesn't have the second best list of wins after Ali. And I stated my reason as to why. And I gave the guy what I felt was his due. I just don't rank him as a top 5 HW nor do I see his list of wins as second only to Ali's.
Both Bowe and Moorer beat other guys than Holyfield you clearly didn't watch that era if you're saying that. Bowe beat Hide, Tubbs, Biggs, etc. Moorer beat Cooper, Brotha, Schulz,Smith, etc. Bruno wasn't better than either of them. Bruno lost anytime he stepped up outside of his 1 elite win against McCall and McCall himself was an inconsistent guy who himself only had 1 elite win. Bruno got demolished by Tyson, Smith, Lewis, Witherspoon, etc, just about every other big name he got in the ring with. Sanders was a 1 hit wonder. Had a long career but what exactly did he accomplish other than stopping an inexperienced weak chinned Wladmir? Got beat up by rahman and Vitali. Rest of his career he did what...??? Tua had plenty of opportunities and can really only blame himself. Got fat and lazy. Wasn't always willing to go out on his shield and give everything he had. Could become very brain dead and 1 dimensional just looking for one big punch. And his resume certainly isn't better than Bowe's. He squashed Ruiz and a very old Moorer, couldn't convincingly beat Rahman in 2 attempts, lost to Ike, lost to Byrd, one sided blowout to Lewis, etc. Ruddock was the Cleveland Williams/Gerry Cooney of the 90's. Made a reputation as a fearsome puncher but had very leaky defense and could be very predictable loading up for the same big shots. His resume, again, isn't remotely close to Bowe or Moorer. You have no idea what you're talking about. Ruddock crushed a declining drug addict Dokes and just barely beat the one dimensional very old smith needing to get off the floor to win. Very close split decision over an aging weaver. Not the most convincing resume. Proceeded to get demolished by Tyson, Lewis, and even the chinny Morrison. He was brave and exciting to watch but he just wasn't that great and was never in a g position to demand a fight with Holyfield.
What is your obsession with going 12 rounds? Is it better to let the judges determine a winner than to win a championship fight by brutal knockout? If Tyson struggled in a back and forth 12 round match, this would somehow be more convincing that he didn't lose a step and was in top form?
