in 91 tyson looked to be improving, you can see this in his fights with Ruddock. By 92 he'd have been back at a very high level and fights with Holy, Bowe, Moorer, Old Foreman would rightly have given us a better indicator as to how he'd have done. The fact he came back so successfully and within 4 fights was the top ranked HW in the world, allows us to join the dots somewhat. Without Prison, he'd have likely retired by 98 or so but we'll never know. Still I give Tyson the close edge based on his peak level compared to Holy's peak level.
holyfield achieved more; tyson is the better fighter. holy is greater based on achievement. tyson had more ability
Tyson wasnt improving in 91?? Tyson might have been more interested in boxing, but his skills were not getting better than they once were. Maybe he looked better than he did in the Douglas or Bruno fights, but he wasnt improving from the late 80's Tyson. Tyson wasnt a whole lot different in technique in say 96 than he was in 91, but his mindset as a fighter in 96 was completely different and that was the biggest change in him. He no longer had the guts to go through a fight like he did in 91 against Ruddock. Tyson pretty much gave up in both fights against Holyfield, tried to quit against Botha, was lucky the fight with Nielson was stopped, quit against McBride, Lewis, and Williams. When I say quit, I mean he basically stopped fighting and was reduced to a punching bag. Not once in his entire comeback was he equipped to fight a long grueling fight, and if the fight passed five or six rounds he pretty much gave up. The Holyfield fight exposed this in Tyson and thats why I say his post prison career did little to enhance his legacy in my mind. If the mid 90's version of Tyson was dropped into some of his earlier career fights, he would have lost a good bit of them.
The bit I highlighted is exactly what I meant by improvement. I don't think the Holyfield fight exposed anything in Tyson. He lost to a great fighter, when the best fight the best, it happens.
He was never presented with the same type of adversity his entire comeback, meaning, he never had to pound out a win or proved he could. Holyfield didnt do much of anything great in that fight, but he wouldnt go away. Imagine if it was a guy like Ruddock landing the same type of shots that Holyfield did? Tyson was completely fatigued by the middle of the fight. Or Jose Ribalta who kept getting off the deck and taking everything Tyson dished out to him? He never proved that kind of mettle his entire comeback, ever. On another related not, I always felt the Nielson stoppage was a little fishy. Tyson was in horrible shape and gassing, Nielson most likely could have continued and created some serious problems for Tyson and Nielsons corner stopped the fight. Its almost like that was prearranged???
It doesn't matter does it. Until 04 the only men who beat him were holyfield and lewis. Some mythical matchup with a man he'd already beat means nothing. His victories over top 5 hw's do mean something however. The fact he wasn't as good and did reach the heights he did is exactly the reason his comeback improved his legacy to a point that puts him above holyfield imo.
Whatever discussion is old. Holyfield should be ranked above Tyson in my opinion, he accomplished more.
You do realise boxing is subjective right. Look at the roll it's split right down the middle. As I said a good few posts ago, we have different criteria. It was obvious then we weren't gonna agree but you keep trying to convince me otherwise. Past prime victories play a big past in my evaluations of legacy.
Im not trying to convince you of anything my man, but if thats the case, Holyfield is argueably a 5 time champion. Holy should be #1 on your list.
no. louis, ali, holmes, foreman all have better past prime victories. marciano and lewis were better champs. johnson has a better resume imo. Holyfield's past prime efforts against Tyson, Moorer, Ruiz (3rd fight was a robbery but so was the first), Rahman and later against Valuev are very good. What lets Holyfield down is, like Johnson, he just was never a dominant champion. Tyson was one of the most dominant chmps in history at the time he lost, his wins ove rruddock showed he could still be a force, to come back after 4 years inside and hit the top is fantastic imo. Holyfield is really only a 3 time champ anyways (beating douglas, bowe and tyson). I'm content that Tyson is more desreving of the 8th place on my list: Resume = Holyfield Legacy = Tyson H2H skillset = Tyson. However, I might be tempted to place Holyfield above Dempsey, not convinced on that one yet. Louis Ali Rocky Johnson Holmes Foreman Lewis Tyson Holyfield/Dempsey. <- not 100% convinced. but as for the thread, yes I think Tyson's achievements cancel out Holyfields resume and the tie breaker is either the victories holy has over mike, or the dominance of 86-88 tyson convincing you peak tyson beats peak holyfield (I go with the latter). Either way, there really shouldn't be much in it because both had fantastically great careers from a statistical viewpoint.
Except throw the straighter punches, time Tyson perfectly, putting him on the back foot, counter punching him so well Tyson called him the best counter puncher he'd ever fought. Tyson was coming on strong in the 6th until he was hit in the nuts and generally he took some body punishment too. He also did some good work after that round