Prime tyson beats prime holyfield, convince me.

In hindsight, it's not surprising Holyfield is apparently broke or has no liquid assets. He certainly seems easily led in business matters.

 

If people actually stopped and listened to Lefthook more often, the world would be a better place....

Tyson Vs Holyfield 90-91 is a totally different ballgame.....Holy more prone to getting sucked into a brawl( like the 1st bowe fight) & Tyson much better conditioned & ring-savvy..... I cant tell you who wins, but i bet my house its a much more entertaining fight than the garbage of 96 :good




And COMBATESBOXING or whatever the **** your name is, You are a ****ing idiot.....Spanish ****wit.....Im sick of seeing your trolling all through this site :hi:

 

I wrote this earlier:

 

The thing is, 90% of people believed Tyson would totally destroy Evander and many worried for Holyfields health.
Right up until the moment they fought.

Then the facts speak for themselves ------------- But sadly a lot of Tyson fanboys just revise history and claim Tyson was [almost] shot.
Funny how the odds before Holy Tyson 1 didnt reflect this!!

 

Holyfield did look terrible leading up the Tyson fight, and Im not convinced he became better for Tyson but he did prepare himself well for what Tyson was going to bring to the table. He was struggling early in training with club level fighters like Gary Bell almost to the point he was going to withdraw from the fight. He stuck to it, and started doing well and when Tua came to camp, he was doing much better. He prepared to get hit hard and brawl early and that was a big factor for Holyfield.

People werent necessarily sold on Tyson being completely back, but based off of Holys prior performances most were sure Tyson would hit Holyfield clean and he would fall down. One thing was clear, Holyfield was looking like **** and Tyson still had punching power.

I knew from the second that fight started and Tyson landed that huge righthand and it didnt budge Holyfield, that Tyson was going to be in a long fight and we were going to see what he really had left.

People on here use hindsight all the time to talk about fighters and especially Holyfield, but when it comes to Tyson, a four year prison stint and three nothing fights, brought him back to the same fighter he was in 88.:roll:

 

Tyson was past his best.
He'd looked good against Bruno though. He wasn't like he was in '88, but was he any worse than he'd been in '89 or '91 ?

 

Thats the thing, in 1988 he had never fought an elite fighter - evander was the biggest test thus far of Tysons career and the fact is Tyson was still very destructive of a certain level of heavyweight - But when the big test came - he failed it
And again the Tyson fan club refused to aknowlege what they had seen with their own eyes and Tyson was still the heavy favourite in the rematch.

 

No the thing is Evander was no longer an elite fighter in 96 and Frank Bruno wasnt in 89 and certainly not in 96! Thats the whole point that noone seems to get!!!!!!

 

Depends how you define "elite" fighter. When was Evander an elite fighter ?

I understand your argument but I don't believe in it.
It goes something like,
"Tyson lost to Douglas but he'd always beaten men of "the level" of Douglas before, therefore he must have been badly diminished when he fought Douglas" .....
"Tyson lost to a diminished Holyfield, but he'd always beaten men of "that level" before, therefore he must have been badly diminished when he fought Holyfield"

Boxers cannot be fitted so neatly into categories and class levels, there's no strict hierarchy between good contenders, champions and great champions. Such things are only really decided by consistency, and a degree of luck. Tyson was very consistent but that didn't mean it would have to be a great fighter to beat him. All fighters lose some fights. George Foreman lost to Muhammad Ali, who was blatantly at the level of Frazier and Norton at that time, by any other measurable standard (other than him beating Foreman). But Foreman destroyed Frazier and Norton.

 

No one suggested Bruno was elite at any time in his career - Bruno was the level of fighter that Tyson could look awesome against.
The way Holyfield handled Moorer after the Tyson fights was an elite display compared to the 94 showing.

 

Bruno wasn't any good at all really. Great strength and physique, but he couldn't really fight. He had basic skills, a jab, but he was probably the one of the least relaxed fighters I've ever seen. All stressed and tight. He held on for dear life both times he fought Tyson. Tim Witherspoon didn't even bother training and he outpunched Bruno.
Bruno's best fight against a good fighter was against Lewis, and he folded like a cheap suit when Lewis nailed him with that left hook.

 

If Tyson had been in a fight similar to the one he was in before he was scheduled to face Holyfield in 91, I would 100% have a different opinion on this.
To answer your question, yes it turns out he was worse, and if you take Tyson seriously when he critiques himself he says he hadnt been a fighter since 1991.
Personally I find Tyson pretty humble when surmising his career and I believed that before I heard him say it and it was pretty obvious by his implosions in the ring where in most cases he was faced with a lot less adversity as he had been in the past.