Earnie Shavers vs Evander Holyfield

Fair assessment. I agree with most of what you say

 

Holyfield only lost to Moorer and Bowe in his first decade competing at Heavyweight. He avenged Moorer and had a win over Bowe in a historical trilogy. He was still reasonably competitive with Lennox Lewis after this first decade when aged. He pumped the younger Tyson a few years prior to this.

So we have a decade at or right near the top. It's a pretty decent record. Longevity scores high marks.

Where do you have Tyson both resume wise and H2H?

 

Resume I have him #6/7 at the moment. I don't think anyone dominated like he did over a good bunch of talented big men who were mobile and could box. I don't see anyone else doing that to the group of fighters like Tyson did. Extremely impressive in my eyes. Even more impressive the older I get, which should be the opposite considering I was 11 years old when Spinks "done late" after just 91 seconds.

Head to head I have Tyson #1. He's not unbeatable but I can't favor anyone over him, maybe even money but not a favorite. There was a recent tweet sent to George Foreman asking him who would win a battle between Tyson and Bowe. George replied with "Nobody beats Tyson in his "brief" prime!" Foreman has gone on record saying Ali was the best, Lennox was the best, Joe Louis was the best, and now Tyson couldn't be beaten. Anyways, despite his prime being brief, Mike crammed in 9 successful defenses which was 3rd or 4th most at the time.

And he fell way short of those lofty goals...

H2H:
Tyson
Ali
Holmes
Louis
Bowe
Liston
Lewis
Foreman
Wlad
Vitali

 

Tyson #1 H2H would be one mighty tough sell and would involve a huge leap of faith to say the least. He can't fight backing up and has zero B plan when A doesn't work. Also never beat an ATG heavyweight tho he's not alone there with Holmes and possibly Louis and Marciano. Marciano was never beaten however and Louis had basically triple Tyson's time at the top.

#6-7 you could maybe manufacture an argument. Be a hard sell having him much ahead of Holyfield tho. Pretty sure i had him #8 or #9 when i did a list. Had a hard time separating him and Holyfield and their massive contrasts.

 

A lot of people rate him highly H2H. The man was a dynamo and had success against many styles. Like I've stated before I can't comfortably favor anyone over him. I see him doing very well against the field, far better than Holyfield and the rest of the ATG's in fact. Remember, Cus saw something in this guy.

A successful title reign is my first criteria when ranking resume/accomplishments. Louis had one, Ali had one, Holmes, Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, Frazier and Lennox were all successful. We can also put Wlad up there...ugh. I probably should put more stock in longevity with Holyfield being champ in 1990 and also through most of 1999. That's a full decade at or near the top.

Tyson and Holyfield probably should be ranked closer because Holy has some huge wins under his belt. I just never felt he dominated like Tyson and the guys I mentioned above did. It's been said that Holyfield fights a life and death battle and he's deemed a warrior - Tyson knocks the same guy out in a round and the opponent is deemed a bum.

 

You can't comfortably favor anyone over Tyson. Who do you comfortably favor over Ali?

Holyfield didn't dominate but nor did Larry Holmes. He had his struggles too but the thing is they won. They won under duress which is something Mike never did so on the other hand in an ironic way it gives them something Tyson never really showed.

Later career or not Holyfield also has two dominant victories over Mike. Both were still world class and well within the top 5. The mentality of both was quite interesting. It has to add doubt as to how Tyson would ever go vs Holyfield. I myself would favor holyfield to be quite frank, even this old version. He had Tyson worked out to a tee and his tactis would have seriously hindered any version of Mike imo.

In short there's too many question marks to have Mike that high for me. He's not going to walk thru all the ATG's and with his inability to adapt he's vulnerable. He also can't fght backing up and guys like Liston and Foreman are going to stop his forward momentum in it's tracks at various stages. Others like Holyfield and Lewis will hit him with spoiling tactics just as they did in their actual fights. Whether peak Tyson can get around them is open to question - and it's definitely a very open question.

Too many doubts for me. Maybe 3-6.

 

Look guys, it could happen. Weirder things have happened in boxing. Earnie could lay him out early, straightening out his philandering ways.

 

Guys like Holmes, Bowe, Lewis, Vitali, maybe Louis I would call it pretty close to even against Ali. But honestly, the only man I see who's a clear favorite over a prime Ali would be someone with the style (we all love to talk about styles here) to dethrone him would be Mike Tyson. I truly believe Tyson is the foil to Ali's movement. Ali was also susceptible to left hooks and Tyson had a dandy.

How much duress must a fighter be under to prove they can come from behind to win?

Anyways, I disagree. Tyson had some interesting moments in both fights with Ruddock. He was also down 4 rounds to nil against Botha. And against Douglas, he almost became the poster boy for remarkable comebacks with one punch. No, he didn't win. But he showed he was certainly capable of turning it around in times of duress. The bell ending the round, the incompetent referee, Douglas getting up at the count of 9 1/2 and Douglas looking like he wasn't sure he wanted to continue can all be questioned.

Well, if Holyfield had spent 3 years in the clink before he fought Tyson I'm pretty sure that would be a talking point when assessing their battle. Holyfield bided his time, waiting in the wings for his shot. He had "retired" twice before and when Tyson made his 1995 return, so did Holyfield. Perfect timing...for Holyfield.

I've gone on record believing Tyson lost more from late 1988 to 1996 than Holyfield had lost from say 1991 to 1996. Putting that aside, Holyfield got him good. It's now in the history books that Holyfield beat Tyson twice. And it's not because Holyfield got better with age, he just adapted better than Tyson did. It still doesn't tell me how a prime 4 prime battle would go down.

I never understood the "Tyson can't fight going backwards" myth. I know it was made up by Eddie Futch, who went 0-2 against Mike in the 80's. What does that mean, anyways? He can't deliver a punch properly? His feet get tangled up? His movement is nullified? He gets pushed back in a clinch? He can't adapt? Not sure what that really meant. From what I've seen, Tyson doesn't need to fighting going backwards.

We're talking about Tyson's prime here, and he passed some marks along the way just fine. Every fighter has weaknesses but Tyson's seems to get magnified here. He certainly showed he can overcome those weaknesses when need be. Just like any other ATG heavyweight would. Tyson belongs with them for sure, in the highest echelons.

 

In your opinion

 

Sangria - I'll provide some detailed rebuttals to your post over the weekend. We definitely judge Tyson to vastly different standards.

 

Were talking about Holy vs Shavers. I dont care who beat who and In what round. None of that means sh#t. Its about these 2 men and these 2 only. Bottom line is Holy liked to brawl and if you brawl with Shavers theres a big chance you can come out on the wrong end. I dont need you giving me examples of there past fights because im well aware of them too.

 

Shavers would have a chance with the Holyfield of the first Michael Moorer fight.

 

I dunno. Personally I think Moorer was underrated as a boxer.