Prime tyson beats prime holyfield, convince me.

Then you need to start learning english again. Theres plenty of reasons backed up with pretty accurate accounts of both fighters fighting styles and yes its just an opinion, but you, AKA Foreman Hook have an agenda so there is no convincing you.

 

I knew it would only take a little tip off to get this thread started even though the topic has been beat to death.

 

Did you go temporarily blind when you came across every post that actually stated reasons, i.e. 3/4 of the thread?

 

No its not.. Its the fact that Holyfield fought different and so did Tyson and Tyson was a lot better than he was in 96 and Holyfields style would have suited Tyson's better around that time. The size was just part of the equation.

 

Don't you even consider that Holyfield would have shown Tyson infinitely more respect than he showed those guys ?
I mean, he respected the hell out of Tyson's ability, and Tyson was the most studied and talked about fighter out there.

Besides, even if Holyfield brawls with him, there's nothing to say he doesn't prevail. Tyson never beat a fighter who came to war with him of Holyfield's ability either. And frankly Holyfield is the one who showed more grit and a more remarkable ability to consistently fire back and hurt fighters who hurt him. Fighters like Bowe, who came to fight with skills.

 

I never saw Holyfield show any fighter respect whether Bowe, Foreman Holmes Cooper whoever in the early 90's. I dont think he was capable of fighting the fight he fought in 96 either, never saw him fight anything close, did you?
Holyfield didnt do enough in 96 to convince me could prevail in a brawl with Tyson in 88.

 

You make out Holyfield was just some unintelligent reckless brawler.
Your views of the Foreman fight are different to mine, you say "he engaged too much", I say he boxed smart and he fought hard.
He was clever against Holmes, he adapted to Holmes' ploys, and ground out a decision. Not a great performance by any means, but not a style Holyfield would ever do well against.
He sure as hell didn't show Bowe enough respect. He, and many others, thought Bowe wouldn't handle the pace and pressure. He based a lot of that on his experiences with Bowe as a sparring partner years earlier, and on the general line on Bowe as being "lazy", lacking heart, or whatever. He got it wrong, but how's he going to underestimate Mike Tyson in '88 - '91 ? It's impossible.
Against Cooper he becomes flat-footed, displaying no lateral movement, about a minute into the fight, clearly believing he had nothing to fear, and clearly just setting himself to get the "bum" out of there in quick. Stupid mistake. But again, how's he going to make that mistake with Tyson ?

I think you generalise too much. The man always had the talent and the brain. And he always had a plan to box and break down Tyson, not just trade and hope for the best. The man was a professional.
He made some mistakes. But even when it cost hims against Bowe, he put up a hell of a fight to a point where Bowe had to be positively great that night to beat him.

 

No I just saw a fighter who could be engaged and easily taken out of any type of plan by lessor brawlers than Tyson was. Yes Holyfield was not in touch with his limitations as he became later on, you call it being reckless and stupid, let's just say it was part of being young and less rounded as a heavyweight.
That stylistically creates a more favorable fight for Mike Tyson. It's my opinion im not trying to convince you otherwise and nothing you say will convince me otherwise either. Different times vastly different fighters in my view.