Prime tyson beats prime holyfield, convince me.

It is true.

For Holy 1 Tyson barely trained, no roadwork AT ALL and some sparring and bodybuilding....all together he had maybe a three week training camp. At best while Holyfield was completly zoned in on a mission. Tyson was also enbattled with the Rooney lawsuit in New York right around fight time so instead of training good ol' Mike went partying in the City.........

I agree, pre prison Tyson beats Holyfield due as other have mentioned his inability not to brawl or fight tit for tat like the Bowe or Cooper fights. A lot of people alos forget that Holyfield never liked it to the body and prime Tyson would have worked that body overtime. Even in 96 when washed up Mike landed that body uppercut combo ONCE Holy looked like the life was sucked out of him for a moment, even the fight commentators noticed it, sadly Tyson had nothing left but pre prison would have landed that or similar combos every round.

 

Put me down for an early Tyson KO while this guy's doubling over with laughter.

 

What makes you think Tyson would beat Joe Louis by early KO ?

 

Like Douglas, Holyfield was not afraid of Tyson.That was half the battle. when Tyson was with Roony he was a machine . I will always remeber those clowns in Tysons corner using a plastic bag with water in it on Tysons eye....No enswell...ATLAS CUS AND ROONEY , creatated a fighting machine. Don king desrtoyed that....

 

I see that but the interview Im talking about is from earlier when he was still fighting. I looked and I cant find it..

 

Well, I think he's become more humble and honest and reflective in later interviews.
Also, in the post-McBride press conference when he declared he could not go on embarrassing the sport by fighting on, he explicitly said he hadn't had any real heart for the game "fight the Razor Ruddock fights" too. Now he's clarifying that by saying it was apparent before he went to jail.
I think Tyson gets more honest, insightful and eloquent all the time.
I'll just take his word for it.

 

Until Moorer gets hit on the chin!

 

I think he also starts telling people what they want to hear since hes on these speaking tours. When hes asked every interview why he bit Holyfield he starts giving the answer everyone wants to hear to stop the conversation. If you watched him in Opera, when given the chance to apologize to Evander he never did it. Hes never apologized to Holyfield for doing that.
Regardless, both physically and mentally hes still a lot better fighter in 91 than he was in 96.

 

Your clueless.

 

Micheal Moorer is a better fighter but the better fighter doesn't always win.

Mayorga should never have beaten Vernon Forrest but he did.

Pavlik should never have beaten Jermain Taylor, Taylor was simply too skilled for him but Pavlik beat him all the same.

Foreman should never have beaten Micheal Moorer in 1994, but he did.

Bruno is a big strong guy with 1 punch power. I can easily see a fight were Bruno turns it around behind on cards and scoring the KO. I'd favor Micheal Moorer to beat Frank but I would never put money on it because his chin is far too unreliable.

As for the comment;

Unlikely yes. Blasphemous, No...

 

In 1994 Foreman was not expected to beat Micheal Moorer and if you watched the fight, the first 9 rounds pretty much explain why Moorer was the favorite. The 10th round explains why Bruno has a chance.

Holyfield may have been "350 times" better than Bruno but Styles Make fights.

Holyfield beats Foreman in 91
Holyfield loses to Moorer in 94
Foreman beats Moorer in 1994.

So the Holyfield argument is irrelevant.

Perhaps you didn't understand my comparisons that illustrated the case of the better fighter doesn't always win. Micheal Moorer may be a better fighter than Frank Bruno but it doesn't mean that he's a lock to beat Frank Bruno. He could very well get KO'd.

We know you love Foreman but you need to relax, you overreacted because you thought I was comparing Bruno to Foreman and somehow I was criticizing Foreman. Read my post again I wasn't making comparisons but since we're on it; Frank Bruno in his prime was better than George Foreman in 1994. And that's not blasphemy, that's the truth. :deal