Holyfield...Did he just have Tyson's number?

Would anybody else agree that the decline in Tysons skills and his lack of ring sharpness and timing were a lot bigger factors in his performances against Holyfield than his mental weakness.

 

Yes thats exactly what I think, 3 years of inactivity & 8 rounds of boxing does not prepare you for a fight with Holyfield.

 

No.

I think that generally a lot of excuses are made for Tyson..... whereas very few are made for others when they lose, especially at/around their prime.

He was good, very good, but not great - not by a long shot.

 

Tyson had been out of boxing for 4 years, had lost his stamina, the most underrated attribute in boxing, you dont think thats a good excuse?

You think a none great would decimate that Larry Holmes and Spinks? Clean out the 80s division, which for the record is allot better than todays? I'm interested who you rate above Tyson>|?

 

It wasn't just clinching and headbutting.

Holyfield beat Tyson mainly because he could infight and Tyson couldn't.

That is the bottom line.

 

At the end of the day, all questions will be answered when they fight again.

 

Couldn't in fight? He arguably had the best uppercut of all time

 

It was HIS fault (and his alone) that he was out for four years, and preferred to chew up a few clowns before facing a terrified (and unmotivated) Bruno, then Seldon.... rather than building up properly, before running from Lewis and cherrypicking a supposedly shot Holyfield.

I wouldn't have Tyson in the top 10, put it that way.

Not a great deal of thought has gone into my 11-20 at heavyweight, though I'd guess he would figure somewhere.

 

Having declined skills isnt an excuse, its his fault, but it was clearly a big factor

 

Maybe Holyfield,by maybe being more side-on when close got more leverage on the punches inside?

Tyson's peekaboo style had him throwing well timed fast midrange combinations from a more square on position.

With the loss of his timing and speed and with more single-shot headhunting ,this square on style would be a real liability against a more competent orthodox fighter.

 

I love it the way Tyson fans gloss over the fact that Holyfield was 34 at the time and has been in many many wars, he was also coming off some terrible performances against Moorer and Bowe, but lets not ruin a good story eh.

:-patsch

Tyson was in better shape than Holyfield to win that fight, he lost because Holyfield was a better fighter.

 

:yep

 

Did the version of Moorer that first beat Holyfield always have Holyfield's number?

Did a young Riddick Bowe in the first fight of their trilogy always have Holyfield's number?

Was Holyfield **** in those fights or were Moorer and Bowe really that good?
Put it that way, it's imponderable.

 

Twist it which ever way you want Holyfield was coming off two terrible performances, that is a fact! and he still beat Mike aged 34 after all those wars.

The excuses dont wash

 

I'd say he did.

He had no fear, had a game plan which he followed religiously, and proved the better man. It helped that he had a granite chin, as well all know Tyson could seriously bang with the very best of them.

Save for those pesky headbutts, a not-so-gloriuus staple of The Real Deal, he did everything right.