Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

Do people think Tyson was beaten in his prime? I do and it certainly hurts his legacy..

Arguably Commander was never in his element at heavy because he was relatively small and he was pushing 30 when he first loss to Bowe.

 

At a certain year, it would be a definite yes.

But a lot of it depends on how long Evander decides to be a punching bag.

I will still give Holy the edge though. But it's slight.

 

P4P basis, Holyfield edges it for me.

In pure heavyweight ATG sense, Tyson is the clear favorite IMO. Holyfield was never dominant in the division like Tyson was.

 

I don't think Tyson was beaten in what was his true prime. I think head to head he'd have been a menace to any HW of all time at his absolute peak years (which were few).

 

I dont know...24...only 18 months after he destroyed Spinks which is no indication of him being a prime fighter I know but he did what he supposed to in that fight.

I truly believe he just totally underrated Douglas and was underprepared for the fight because he was ****ing around to much outside of the ring. And mentally...well Tyson is Tyson.

Physically I reckon he was good as he was during his early reign. I dont think he should get a pass because he didnt use his talents or wasnt mentally capable of dealing with his lifestyle.

 

Exactly. Tyson's fault, I know, and it must be held against him, but he was never the same after or even just before this fight, so it must be considered the end of his prime IMO, and not at his best for that fight.

When he had his head on straight, Rooney in his corner, gaining experience, and defending his title early on, he was at his formidable best. But he peaked early, like Benitez, so we didn't get to see too much of that.

 

Well its a point to discuss.

If a fighter defines his own prime by having a lifestyle that is to the detriment of his career in the ring..should we say "oh well he wasnt in his prime for that fight".

A fighter's dominance in his prime is paramount to ranking him alltime and h2h. So many wins and losses get spun around because people argue said fighter wasn't at his best. But if theoretically a fighter could have had a longer prime period by living right, do losses in that grey area between prime and not-prime have the same gravity?

Really my point is if Tyson got beaten by Douglas at 24, should that effect his legacy and how he goes in alltime h2h matchups...Or does it not factor in.

You get what Im saying...I dont even know if I do.

 

Exactly the reason why he's not an elite ATG and arguably not a top 10 heavyweight either. Many fighters overcome such hurdles outside the ring which enhance their greatness somewhat. I think Tyson was a great 'on top' fighter who was brilliant at his best. When people rate Tyson high H2H they forget the mental aspect of such match-ups. I don't like his chances down the stretch in long gruelling affairs with opponents who showed mental toughness that outweighed anything Tyson ever showed. His chin keeps him in there, but his ability to rebound from adversity is weak. Also his non existent recovery powers after hitting the canvas to turn possible defeat into victory. Fouling can't be overlooked as well. Maybe chewing a part of an opponents ear off never happened in his prime, but when matching him against Marciano, Frazier, Holmes, Ali, Foreman, etc, it's highly possible he would have had he felt the heat that he never in his prime, thus resorting to such tactics.

 

Russell...the answer is defintley yes. what tyson accomplished in his 1980s title reign far exceeds anything holyfield accomplished. tysons 1980s title reign consisted of dominance, consistenty, that holyfield never came close to showing during his career....

in fact tysons 1980s title reign is arguebably the most consistent dominant title reign ever by a heavyweight champion. lets take a look


tyson- only heavyweight in history to Unify all 3 belts starting from SCRATCH. to make it more amazing.....he accomplished this feat in just one year!!! Tyson essentially cleaned up the huge alpha title mess larry holmes left us, and tyson firmly established a # 1 man out there.....while holmes did not unify one belt in 7 years, tyson unified all 3 in one year!!!

Tysons reign was as dominant as any in history. he fought all top 10 rated contenders/many current/former heavyweight champions and DOMINATED them beating them with no controvery, in fact he knocked out top champions out cold that had never been down/stopped before. larry holmes title reign in comparison was filled with controversial close decisions and he missed out on fighting 2 or 3 top fighters of his era, while tyson fought everyone worthy and dominated them. not to single out holmes here, as many other champions can be accused of this well


holyfields title reign

W 12 42 year old foreman- couldnt put foreman down, foreman staggered him and won around 4 rounds. hardly dominating

W 12 44 year old holmes - Holmes won around 4 rounds and gave him issues especially early on till he tired. hardly dominating win for holy, tyson knocked this guy out cold in 4 years earlier.

TKO 7 Bert Cooper- he was a double substitue journeyman and he put holy down and was seconds away from putting holyfield out. a huge struggle



This to me is a horribly inconsistent and very unspectacular against mediocre opposition compared to mike tysons dominant 1980s title reign.





h2h mike tyson matches up much better vs the rest of the field than holyfield does, Tyson brought a combination of power speed skill that history has never seen before since joe louis. tyson is arguebably the greatest puncher the history of the sport has ever seen. I think h2h at his best he knocks holyfield out in 5. holy cant possibly brawl and expect to beat mike at the peak of his powers....even the late 1980s holy who was young fast and talented boxer on his toes.....that version lacked the defense to espace mikes combinations and at some point would be drawn into action and that would be holyfields demise.

 

No, I do not think that you can rate Mike Tyson above Evander Holyfield.

I think both fighters had 2 careers in a way. Tyson before and after prison, Holyfield before and after "heart troubles." I've read numerous stories about Holyfield's heart problem, but I'm not a doctor. I don't know if he truly had a heart problem. I do know that he fought differently before and after the stories about his heart. When I hear the steroid speculation, this is when I think Holyfield's use may have started. I do not let it affect my rating of Holyfield, as I do not know how true the steroid rumors are.

If you look at their first careers, Holyfield edges Tyson because of one fighter. That fighter is Riddick Bowe. I can argue the rest of Tyson's opponents were as good, or better than Holyfield's. Riddick Bowe is arguably a top 20 all time heavyweight, and Tyson never beat a top 20 all time heavy(while that heavy was still in his prime). The only way Tyson could have been more impressive is to have defeated Holyfield before he went to prison.

If you look at their 2nd careers, you'll see that Evander beat Mike. Holyfield also has wins over Mercer and Moorer to compliment that. Tyson defeated Seldon and Bruno. I believe Holyfield edges him here, without the Tyson victories.

 

holy went 1-2 vs bowe though, thats not a winning record. if tyson gets 3 chances to beat bowe, he sure as hell well win at least 1

 

mike tysons 1980s title reign far exceeds anything holy did in terms of dominance consistently