Prime for Prime-Evander Holyfield vs Mike Tyson

Not to be a Tyson jockey, but I tend to agree. He was the full package. Defensively, offensively, speed, combination punching etc. You compare what he did to heavyweights and what Holyfield had to go through to beat comparable opposition and it just never resembles the fights that happened in the 90's. Unless you understand how bad his technique became and how good he was defensively in the 80's its easy to say he would never beat Holyfield. The Tyson of the 80s was a completely different fighter.

 

I absolutely agree with you here.

 

horrible horrible point... 100%irrelevant, styles make fights... that´s all, so according to your logic foreman should have killed ali... because frazier and norton were rag dolls in front of george. evander had the number of tyson. does not matter if tyson was more dominant against another guys

 

:rofl:rofl what a bunch of partial crap

 

Who in history do you think would school the 86/87 - 88 Tyson? (Hell, even the 89 non-Rooney version wasn't all that bad). I'll admit there are a select few greats who might be able to go the distance for a split, or maybe even to a draw, but to actually definitively defeat this version of Tyson (either by UD or KO) would be for all intents and purposes impossible. Tyson was on a different level during the Rooney years.

 

I KNOW THAT A PEAK TYSON WAS A TOP FORCE IN THE HW DIVISION... but he was beatable like anyone... nobody is invincible, george foreman would stop him in 5 rounds , ali would beat him by decision, holyfield would beat him probably by MD or sd, vitali klitschko 2003 would have been a hell of fight for mike, he was no james smith, a motivated lewis would have been another hell for him, jack jonhson could frustrate tyson in the clinch just like smith did hard to say

 

True,

But I don't think that was his ONLY point.

 

The man was awesome and I would also pick him to beat a good number of great fighters... But he wasn't invincible. Nobody is.. Tony Tucker took him the distance with a broken hand.. James Smith took him 12 as well and had him stunned. Tyrell Biggs even had a few good moments against him. The rest of his opponents during that time frame were either washed up or too deconditioned to give us an accurate measure of his true abilities... There just weren't any truly great heavyweights around in 87-88 to bolster the claim that he would have beaten everyone.

 

Klitschko, Lewis, and Johnson....you can forget about them, not a chance. 87-88 Tyson KO's all versions of them in under 8 rounds. They're nowhere near 87-88 Tyson's skill level at any point in their careers. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know boxing. Holyfield, Foreman, and Clay have an outside shot......BUT.....Clay loses at least their first fight, look what Frazier and Norton did to him. What do you think a prime Tyson would do?! Foreman from any era is too slow to be effective against a prime Tyson. Look what Holyfield did to Foreman in '91, or what Morrison did in '93, or Young in '77. The Holyfield of 96-97 would've got KO'd by a prime Tyson. Compare styles and analyse referencing Tyson from his 80's bouts. Any analyst will see what i'm saying here. Holy wouldn't have been better or smarter when he was younger, he would have probably tried to bang with Tyson like he did with Foreman, and he would've got owned.

 

:rofl:hi:

 

I can't believe this is even close. Mike Tyson would have killed Holyfield in the first round.

 

god... 2013 is the end of the classic forum

 

I'm not saying that Tyson is or was invincible, i'm saying that the 86-88 version of him is as close to invincible as we'll ever see. Also, the fighters you mention here are good fighters, they could've reasonably competed in any era.

 

These were your exact words, which I cut and pasted, so there has been no change..

"The 87-88 Tyson isn't losing to anyone." - what you proposed here is the very definition of invincible.

 

exactly:deal