Are there people that rank Mike Tyson above Evander Holyfield?

I rank tyson ahead at the moment.

I think tyson's domination of the division between 86 and 90 is first class.

He cleaned the division out and demonstrated enough of a filmed skillset that i'd favour him over most fighters in history.

Returning to the ring after prison to catapult himself to the top of the division is an outstanding achievement and one that holy can't rival imo.

That being said, holy has the edge in resume. That isn't really up for debate.

When I have two as closely matched as this I separate them by who I think wins prime for prime and that man is mike.

The two are next to each other on my current list.

 

It could go either way.

Tyson's reign and dominance were far superior.

They're H2H battles are largely significant IMO. It's utter revisionist drivel to deny Tyson was a massive favorite going into the first fight. I don't need newspaper accounts to back that up. Anybody who followed knew exactly what was up and what was down (Holyfield) in 1996. It was looked at as damn near pathetic. Holyfield owned him terribly, and it wont ever be taken from him. By the second fight, Tyson couldnt even hold the staredown.

They're resumes outside of it are fairly similar, although I'd say the early 90s Bowe was a better fighter than anybody on Tyson's resume, taking into consideration the time each fight took place.

 

I think they are on the same tier.

I myself have them neck and neck, with Holyfield one spot ahead of Tyson.

I couldn't shout down somebody having that reversed, though I disagree.

Tyson has a higher degree of dominance. Holyfield has overall resume.

Tyson probably holds a theoretical head to head edge prime for prime. Holyfield has the actual head to head results.

Pretty close.

 

When assessing H2H, Holyfield may be getting just as short of a stick as Tyson for the fight not taking place earlier.

It wasnt Holyfield who lost to Douglas.
It wasnt Holyfield who postponed the fight.
It wasnt Holyfield who got a **** conviction, however frivolous.

It's like each and every little star has to be aligned for Tyson in order for him to beat this man. Not even '91 Tyson suffices. It has to be '88 Tyson, on a wednesday, 'round 6:30 in the evening, Catskill time.

One thing that can be said is that unlike today, these guys wanted the fight. Both of them.

 

True, although Moorer was a top 5 rated HW from 1992-97 consecutively (and top 10 from 1991-98 ); Holyfield avenged it emphatically, and when Moorer held the IBF strap comprising 1/3 of what constituted undisputed status.

 

Meh I had holyfield beating moorer in the first.

 

Same as MagnaSaki, i have both and Lewis More or less ranked at the same.

Lewis had the overall better career. Tyson had superb dominance, Holyfield has the big wins

 

I rank Holyfield ahead, better resume, and fought better competition for a longer period of time

although Tyson did shine brighter, I think the fashion in which he beat his opponents might have clouded some people's judgments on him, making him seem greater than he really was

 

Its close in my opinion. Both have significant points to their resumes. Tyson wiped out everyone during his initial title run. Holyfield beat those meatier fighters like Bowe and Tyson himself.

Tyson was never able to show he could beat a fighter like Holyfield so I would rank Holyfield over Tyson but I think Tyson could have gone a lot further in the all time rankings and well above Holyfield, had he kept his **** together for a couple more years post 89.

 

I agree, mate. I think Holyfield beats Tyson prime for prime, but I know in active polls, more people disagree. Hence my statement.

I think Holyfield over Tyson is correct. Tyson over Holyfield isn't but its defensible, mainly on the criteria of phenomenal dominance for a spell and that he probably beats more heavyweights than Holyfield does prime for prime. That is my point.

I think you are pretty much spot on yourself.

 

I could formulate an argument either way and come out completely satisfied with it as the separation between them as far as personal bias is between slim and none -- which leads to some brutally honest statements and opinions. It's a win-win. These are two of the greatest fighters of my lifetime (in any sense, period) and I claim them accordingly.

They were equally appealing fighters to me, if in vastly different ways. I acknowledge the presence of Lennox Lewis, but he doesnt elicit the same type of sense-shaking intrigue. He's just an impossible Beast for either of them to crack at that particular time. Holyfield could take all his punches and withstand all his ridiculous weight advantage, even at 37 and having been through straight hell already. There's no way he'd be broken by Lewis. But that accomplishment left him with an empty tank to actually win the fights when it came to mounting consistent offense.

 

This.

Lewis overall had a pretty damn good career. He went on top with the distinction of beating every man he's faced including his heir apparent. His resume has some big names and considerable depth.

Tyson was clearly the most dominant Champion. His 1986-1990 is better than any consecutive 4 year period in Lewis or Holyfield's career. Tyson built his own mystique and the public believed in him long after the media stopped giving him credit.

Holyfield was the man with the big wins. Some of his biggest wins were scenario's in which he's stepping in the ring as a challenger to win a title that he previously held at some point. Holyfield's win over Bowe in the rematch was very telling; it's one thing for Tyson or Lewis to lose to an unheralded fighter in what most experts describe as a fluke and win a rematch. It's another thing to lose to a legit young gifted heavyweight championship calibre fighter in Bowe. Winning the rematch took skill, strategy and the intangibles of a Champion.


Overall I rank:

Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield.

 

I don´t...but Yes.there are....Reznick did this after he called a vote here in Classic......

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSb0fHsYUr0[/ame]