1993 Holyfield v Tyson of spinks fight

That gob shyte is to Tyson, what Dino is to Wlad.

And both have about the same degree of vitriol and cluelessness.

 

People worship Holyfield, but he was, in my opinion, a pretty inconsistent guy. Ten losses on his record, but people seem to have reasons to excuse him for each of them. He appeared to be physically stronger than Tyson in those fights, which was a big surprise, but let's not forget the guys who beat him: Moorer, fat Toney, Ruiz at least once, Larry Donald, etc. It looked like Sherman Williams was going to beat him, too. Yeah, I know: he was old then. So what. It's foolish to say that Tyson could never beat him. Holyfield was pretty reachable with punches...and Tyson was pretty quick. It would have been a war and you could make a good case for either man.

 

^
This

Good fighter but highly over rated, life and death with Cooper, so so against trial horse Stewart, 24 rounds with ancient Holmes/Foreman 1-4 against Bowe/Lewis, less than convincing against tomatoe can Vaughn Bean etc etc.........to claim that he would beat a top of his game Tyson 10 out of 10 is pure fantasy.

 

Have you ever seriously considered trying to spin around in ever decreasing circles until you finally disappear up your own ass?

You would be doing the world a favour if you did.

 

Which is exactly why Tyson and King paid step aside to Lewis, dropped a belt and fought Holy in 96. The year makes no difference, they would have perceived Holy as the weakest link, he would have done what he did when they met, fight back with gusto.

End of debate.

 

Its kind of staggering that people would label Evander Holyfield as being "inconsistent" on the basis that he lost 10 professional fights, when it was apparent that he was passed his prime in about 9 of those 10 outings, yet still fighting some of the best in the world and even then still having some positive results. He was also a man who rose from a lighter division to compete in one of the toughest eras in the sport and during a time when being a "heavyweight" meant being a fairly large man.. Can Mike Tyson claim to having fought Rid**** Bowe, Michael Moorer and Lennox Lewis when they were all in their primes and doing it while being at a disadvantage either due to age or health? Not really.... Hell Holyfield at 45 took Nikolay Valuev the distance in a bout that some feel he won, while Tyson at around 38 got mulled by Danny Williams. throughout the course of his career Holyfield defeated Mike Tyson, James Douglas, Rid**** Bowe, Michael Moorer, Hasim Rahman, Michael Dokes, Ray Mercer, Dwight Qawi, Carlos Deleon along with resurgent and still competitive versions of George Foreman and Larry Holmes.. He is also the heavyweight division's only 4 time world champion and likely the greatest cruiserweight of all time.. I don't buy this inconsistency nonsense... Who wins between 1988 Tyson and 1993 Holyfield? Not sure, but then I don't think 1993 was a prime Evander.. I think 1990 is probably the time frame I'd be looking at.

 

Absolutely.

People forget that Holyfield was undefeated for 8 years as a pro till 30, and he was at that time two-division undisputed champion.

Given the fact that Holy won his 1st title fight in the mid 86, and was undefeated during next 6+ years means that he was consistent at that time. And yes, he won 10 title fights during that period.

 

Agreed.. Evander won his first title in only his 12th pro fight in a 15 round scheduled bout against a future hall of fame inductee. He had to fight through two divisions and several champions, ex champions and ranked contenders before finally getting his shot against Douglas for the lineal heavyweight crown.. People talk about his wins over Holmes and Foreman like they were a bad thing.. Sure they were passed their best. But also reinvented to better suit their old age.. Foreman rightfully earned his top 10 rating before fighting holy and later regained the crown years AFTER fighting him... Holmes was keeping busy and beat a top 10 contender before fighting Evander, then proceded to stick around for another 10 years..

 

Yes, people keep talking about Foreman and Holmes age, and forget that both were able right before (Holmes - Mercer) or even years after (Foreman - Moorer) beat top-5 guys in the division.

Some HW greats could be better at 42 than somebody (like Tyson) at 36-38.

 

I take it from reading your posts that you speak from experience there, Foxy. :yep



You often sound like you're talking outta your ass.

 

Wow, do you mean to say you can actually read?:rofl

 

Excellent post!!

 

Foreman "earned" this title shot against Holyfield by beating inactive Gerry ****ey. He didn't come close to beating a top 10 heavyweight to get his title shot. Unless you really think Adilson Rodriguez was a legitmate contender. Maybe he was technically in the top 10, but strictly based on the largesse of the latin sanctioning bodies.

 

That's all you got ?


I thank that qualifies for what the kids nowadays call FAIL. :yep

 

Holyfield always troubles Tyson period.

I am not saying that Tyson could never have beaten him, but it would be a rash observer who assumed that he would.

The bottom line is that Holyfield found Tyson's key weakness, i.e he couldn't deal with somebody who fought him on the inside.

this was always going to be a serious problem.