Mike Katz article, 1996 Holyfield-Tyson, including thoughts from EDDIE FUTCH

Moorer was a solid fighter. Yes Evander was past his best, but he looked a hell of a lot better in the second fight than the first.

No I dont agree with that position but your entitled to your opinion. Again public perception plays a big factor here. Its perceived as Holyfield's greatest victory. Had Tyson won it would have been comparable to his win over Larry Holmes or maybe worse considering what Holyfield was coming off of and how he was perceived by the public.
Holyfield was inconsistent, but he put together a string of wins that were comparable to his prime and it raised his legacy.
Tyson on the other hand continued his decline and never had a resurgence in his career. Tyson was a lot further from his best than Holyfield when they fought. The future proved it.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3m7tXD-IuA&feature=related[/ame], watch this fight and than watch the bonecrusher fight, you can clearly see a big slippage in Tyson from a techinical stand point and this was before he went to prison. It also proves Rooney was a better trainer for Tyson's style than Richie Gacheti.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fka_m4nyOLQ[/ame], and the only reason why I choose Rudduck and Bonecrusher cause they were both Bangers and tried to brawl with mike and you can see the difference. Tyson actually used his skills mkore against Bonecrusher and moved his head more, which is why Bonecrusher tried holding the whole time and he got hit more against Rudduck. Big difference.

 

Theres no doubt Tyson was a better fighter under Rooney because he emphasized defense just as much as offense. When you listen to all the interviews with Rooney one thing he always took pride in with Tyson was how he was so difficult to hit, and thats why offensive guys like Smith were put into a shell when they faced Tyson, because they found themselves countered on the majority of their offense. Guys who decided to fight with Tyson were battered and usually knocked out pretty quickly.

 

I totally agree, with Tyson you either stood your ground in front of him and got KO'd, or you ran and lasted the 12...well at his peak anyway

 

How would you rate Buster Douglas at his best compared to Pinklon Thomas, Micheal Spinks, Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, and Larry Holmes?(the one Tyson fought) Because I think all those fighters were better than any version of Douglas.

 

Thats a tough question because even though I dont believe Tyson was close to being at his best, Douglas was still able to beat him. Even in the fights leading up the Tyson fight, Douglas didnt look as good as he did in Tokyo but then again Tyson never looked as bad as he did in Tokyo.
I would think all those fighters would give Douglas a tough time and Tucker already had beaten him when he fought for his first title shot. The thought that Douglas was only up for one fight his entire career is just as crazy as people who say Tyson was in top shape and focused. Beating Trevor Berbick and Oliver Mcall leading up to Tyson doesnt even compare to beating Tony Tucker, which he couldnt.
The bottom line is both went to extremes in their respective careeers. Tyson looked somewhat ordinary after being considered unbeatable and Douglas looked like some ATG heavyweight after being considered ordinary.
Consistency tells the tale though, and to me it had a lot more to do with Tyson being under prepared then Douglas being great for only one fight in his career.

 

I agree with what your saying but Douglas looked like he was in trememdous shape against Tony Tucker and Tucker still beat him. Only reason why I asked that is because people consistenly write off those wins against the above fighters I mentioned but give Douglas all the credit in the world like he was some kind of world beater that night but those fighters were also in trememdous shape when they fought Tyson and they all had good boxing ability and talent.(2 of them were all time greats) I don't understand why people don't see that.