All things considered which was the better win?

I think Tyson over Holmes. Yes, Holmes was rusty and not that good but Foreman was ols, slow fat and had only a good jab, chin and power left. Him winning against Moorer is big but overall I don´t rate him during his comeback that high. It´s not as wide as some people think though.

 

Holmes said the layoff was good for him!

 

-Holmes/Tyson is a pretty strong win, roughly on par with Charles/Louis and a similiar situation.

-Holyfield/Foreman is a good enough win but closer to I don't know...Ali/Moore. A legend that is still good enough to be a top 10 fighter but no longer an elite top 3 kind of guy.

 

Holmes had enough time to train, but he'd been out of the ring for too long, and whatever sparring he had just never would provide him with the sharpness he needed.

At least when he fought Mercer and Holyfield he was coming off a string of tune-ups against lower-level fighters.
Still, I think he faced a unpolished Mercer, and I can't give Tyson extra props because Holyfield did poorly with an fat old Holmes.

Sure, it was a good achievement for Tyson to KO Holmes. I agree with that. But Holmes wasn't any better any opponent than Foreman, probably worse, and Holyfield basically dominated Foreman anyway.

I can see both sides, but I can't see the point of view that says "it's not even remotely close". That's just bollocks.

 

Nah, I think it's mostly about people either don't want to give Tyson his due for the win over Holmes and/or want to magnify Holy's win over Foreman.

Beating 38-year old Holmes wasn't such a terribly big deal. There were probably other HWs at the time who could have done it. But brutally stopping him in four rounds without taking a clean punch in return, now that's something else.

 

I think Prime Holy would have survived Foreman early and then would take advantage of his stamina issues winning a close but clear decision.
Tyson could have taken out Holmes early, and I would expect him to do so once in three, but most of the time Holmes would win a decision.

 

Thats because he got his ass kicked and embarrassed like he never did before or after the Tyson fight.
Foremans determination didnt make him a tougher fighter to beat than Holmes who was difficult for everyone with his style. The fact is Holyfield beat Foreman just as Morrison did, just as Moorer was doing etc etc.
Holmes might have been coming off a professional layoff of 21 months, but its not like he popped into the gym for three weeks and then took the fight. Holmes also stylistically always had a style that was going to be harder to matchup against, regardless of his age, probably why Holyfield had a tougher time with him than Foreman? With Foreman you only had box him at range and stay away, and Holyfield still had problems with that, in fact Morrison probably beat him more one sided than Holyfield did, but perhaps Foreman wasnt as focused to win the WBO title?

 

hahaahahhahahaa lmao, the foreman who faced evander was better than holmes88 by a mile, i think that this foreman91 might well ko the tyson who faced holmes, plain and simple. holmes 88 was a heavy bag.

 

Holmes fought a 15 round exhibition fight before the Tyson fight.

 

No, probably the opposite.
I think Holyfield would beat a prime Foreman.
And Holmes would beat a prime Tyson, although I wouldn't rule out a Tyson stoppage.

 

I don't know. I just know he says he was scared, and didn't want to come out of the dressing room, which seems like a very strange alibi to use to deflect from embarrassment and humiliation !

The Foreman who fought Holyfield was better than he was later on, IMO. I think the Holyfield and Stewart fights took something out of him, and I'm not sure what to make of him against Morrison.
Anyway, those are retrospect arguments.

Holmes wasn't expected to last long with Tyson and he didn't.
Foreman did better than expected against Holyfield. I suppose that's a case for Tyson's win being better, but I feel Foreman was better, on the back of four years of regular activity.