Can Tyson Be Ranked Above Holyfield?

Tyson never beat Bowe, that is not my fault.

Tyson's 0-2 record against Holyfield is not a winning record either. If I have to give 30 year old Tyson a break against Holyfield for not being in his prime, then I have to give 33 year old Holyfield a break against Bowe in their 3rd fight.

 

I don't think it's ever been realistic at all.

The only "reason" I see that people put Tyson above Holyfield is because they have pre-conceived notions of both fighters that they can't get out of their head. Either that, or they're just die-hard Tyson fans.

For starters, Holyfield outclassed Tyson at a time when Holy was much farther past his best than Tyson was. On top of that, Tyson at his peak got outclassed by a guy that Holyfield then outclassed.

On top of that, Holy had far more success overall in his career.

If there was ever a fighter who proved he was better than another fighter, it was Holy over Tyson.

 

Tyson's 1980s title reign was embarassingly ended by a fat, glass-chinned, shaky-hearted journeyman. It doesn't measure up to the best title reigns in history.

On top of that, Holy's title reign was jumpstarted by whupping the very guy that outclassed Tyson.

 

In terms of ability or just a measure of time?

As in was Holy more shot or was his best further away in years then Tyson's was?

I tend to think the drastic decline of Tyson from the late 80's till that fight was a sharper fall then Holy had experienced.

 

Hmm I think we can safely say Holy showed alot more heart and determnation throughout his career than Mike. But then, he had to, because his power and skill set were not on prime Tyson's level. So, the question becomes which side of this coin has more weight?

 

In terms of raw ability and athletic prowess I rank Tyson higher.

In terms of heart and determination I rank Holyfield higher.

Tyson was more dominant in his reign than Holyfield was.

Holyfield won fights he was expected to lose, Tyson did not.

Holyfield got off the floor to win, Tyson did not.

Holyfield sometimes struggled with mediocre oppositon, Tyson did not. (Doulgas could not be called mediocre in Tokyo)

Holyfield beat Bowe, a man arguably better than anyone Tyson beat. On the other hand, he also lost to him twice.

Holyfield beat Tyson twice which could be the decisive factor, although neither was at the peak of their powers. (But both were still very good.)

Head to head...I'd favour 80's Tyson to deal with early 90's 208 pound Evander, but the 215 pound Evander that fought Bowe in the second fight would always be a very tough assignment for any version of Tyson.
I think that there was something in Evander that didn't sit well with Tyson at all.

Whichever way you have it, I don't think they're miles apart. I would not argue with anyone who had Holyfield ranked higher or lower than Tyson, as long as they're ranked pretty closely to each other.

 

Tyson was a better and more dominant heavyweight. P4P, though Holyfield is definitely ahead.

 

Yes. He had a dominant reign whilst champ (9 successful defences wasn't it?)

 

Totally agreed... IMO this post should close the show...

 

Thing is Holyfield at his best (at HW) was a super fighter, however during his title reign(s) you always felt he was a fair deal more liable to be on the end on an upset than Tyson who proved himself 'the man' beyond question. His career at Cruiser puts him above Tyson overall, though.


Yes, Tyson had 9 defences: from Smith through Williams.

 

The Douglas Tyson faced was a far superior fighter than the Douglas Holyfield faced, Douglas was paid twenty million dollars for the Holyfield fight and one million for the Tyson fight, he took the money and retired.

Tyson in the second Holyfield fight had trained much harder then for the first and was better prepared, he was butted early by Holyfield opening a big gash and as we know retaliated by biting Holyfield's ear and was DQ'd I am not defending him it was a stupid and disgusting thing to do, but what would have happened if the fight had gone on, probably a draw after Tyson would be unable to continue in the third round because of a cut caused by an unintentional headbutt.

It is not right to rate Holyfield a superior fighter based on these arguments.

 

Both are definite atgs. I don´t think it´s fair to rank one atg above another since they all proved themselves at the highest level or they wouldn´t be called atgs. Nevertheless I think there must be differentiate between atg and elite hws. Both are not elite hws.

 

Who do you define as elite?

 

To be honest Punchy, I have never thought of the headbutts as accidental. They played a major role in the first fight too, and several opponents have complained of Holyfield's use of his noggin. One even labeled it his best punch.
Not to say Mike was an angel...hardly. He butted himself, threw low blows, elbows, punched after the bell...he was dirty too. But Evander was just as dirty, but in a more subtle way.

 

I rate Holyfield slightly over Tyson.

I agree. IMO, Holyfield beat better fighters. Holy's best wins are over Bowe, Tyson, and Moorer.

Tyson does not have one win better than that. In addition, Holyfield sparked the Douglas...a heavier Douglas who was fresh off the TKO win over Tyson, did far better vs Lewis than Tyson did.

If the question is, who matches up better vs grade B, C, or D class fighters, I'll pick Tyson ever time because he blows these types. Holyfield will surely win over grade B, C, and D fighters too, just not as spectular.

However if the question is, who matches up the best elite top 10 ranked fighters of the time, I'll pick Holyfield.