Who was better prime for prime h2h?

Again, all this calls for speculation. Why not instead go with what we know? Holy blew out the guy that dominated Tyson and then dominated Tyson himself.

That is much, much more concrete than speculation about how they could fare against a prime Holmes respectively.

 

It really does. Speculation about what he could do still is deemed to have more weight than what he actually did. I don't know if anyone else gets this benefit. Certainly not like this.

 

I think you're simplifying things.

Tyson's reign in the 80s is one of the most impressive dominant reigns in Heavyweight history.

It's not unreasonable to think a prime Tyson could be a better H2H Heavyweight prime for prime against the rest of the field.

I'm not talking about a hypothetical H2H between Tyson/Holyfield peak for peak BTW.

 

I would pick 1987 - 1989 Tyson over any version of Holy.

By KO.

 

1988 Tyson wipes the floor with that version of Holy.

 

Really ?

Tyson fought exactly 8 rounds over the span of 5 years plus sitting four years in prison before facing Holyfield....................why dont you put Holyfield in the same scenerio and get back to me. No fighter sitting for years in jail is gonna be the same when or if he comes back., not even close, the timing is gone for good.

BUt but but Comeback Holmes or Foreman ? They were never in jail and padded their record with bums or has beens before they stepped up and fought a lot more than 8 rounds in 5 years before their title shot.................

 

Dominant ? Come again ?

1-2 vs Bowe, some say 0-3.........0-2 vs Lewis..................1-1 vs Moorer.............1-1-1 vs Ruiz.........1-0 vs Douglas....without Tyson he won 4 out of 11....with Tyson he won 6 out of 13...............he did not even win 50% of his signature fights and that is 100% not dominant. Fact.

 

Holyfield wishes he could dominate like Tyson did. Chasing Tyson, not Chasing Holyfield.

Remember that.

 

Sure, not more than Holyfield though.

 

If we're taking prime then definitely Tyson.

 

Yes, Tyson was dominant until he was dominated. At that part, many will start "but context" without wanting to hear the context of poor discipline, injuries and drug abuse concerning many of those he dominated.

As I said several times by now, winning where Tyson lost and, especially, beating Tyson himself two times should count higher than that Tyson had an easier time with for example Stewart. Certainly higher than hypotheticals.

 

This has been done to death. Were you around at the time? Holy was seen as the one past it and for good reason.

As I said in another post in this thread, yes Tyson had lost years, but Holy was older and had more wear and tear and had looked much less impressive in previous fights.

 

Tyson closed as a 6-1 favorite btw

 

Prime for prime as a heavyweight Tyson was better. He has the slight edge overall in tittle wins/defences, beat a bit better opposition overall, passes the eye test better and lost what would have probably been 3 or 4 good years where you’d expect he would have won a few more title fights.

Overall as a fighter it’s closer, Evander has multiple weight titles, better longevity, the head to head wins over Tyson.

 

It's funny how Tyson backers never mean this when they call for context. This is the actual context. Holy had lost 2 of his last 4 and struggled with hepatitis and heart issues. But yet it's the guy that had won two titles by obliterating his last opponents that was past it.

Step into the Tysonverse...