Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

Holmes was 10pds. lighter for the Tyson fight than when he fought Holyfield 4 yrs. later who most people tried to to say he looked better which is bull****. He definetly didn't fight like he came in not in great shape. Regardless of what excuse Holmes uses, he fought very well against Tyson and was the far more experienced fighter, and still had good cordination.

As for Tubbs, Tubbs was always a big guy and didn't have a great body to begin with, that doesn't mean he wasn't ready to fight.(fedor in MMA is an example of that, he looks like the pills berry doughboy but is a hell of lot stronger and faster than you think by looking at his body) Infact Tubbs looked extremely fast and motivated when he fought Tyson, he actually won the first round in the fight, and was highly competitive in the second before Tyson caught him.

 

Holmes was definitely bulkier in the chest and shoulders against Holyfield and Mercer,than against Tyson. :think

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

One more for comparison:

This content is protected

At his peak:

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

The excess mass made him a little slower against Holyfield and Mercer. And lets not forget when he was at his best he weighed in around 212Ibs. So he was even lighter.

 

You've pretty much agreed with me on this issue. Thanks for the pics.

 

Whats worse coming into a fight in great shape but having no skills or coming into a fight with good overall skills but in not so great shape? Meaning what good is being in shape if you have no skills? You'll just look better getting knocked out?
And really what fighters of the 90's were in great shape all the time?
And by 90's I specifically refer to the mid 90's and up. Theres a big difference between just the early and mid 90's fighters in my opinion. Oliver Mcall, Frank Bruno, were 80's fighters for the most part. As someone said the lightbulb didnt turn off when the clock struck 1990. It was by mid 94-95 that the better technically skilled guys were replaced by the one dimensional statues. The Rahman, Savarese, Briggs, Izon, Grant types.

BTW Tua was fat slob, Rahman was probably the biggest unmotivated lazy ass, and Golota was so mentally weak he could never win any fight of merit.
You want to tell me a guy like Mike Grant had better boxing skills than Tony Tubbs or Pinklon Thomas?
Theres a reason Holmes, Witherspoon, Tyson, Foreman, and Holyfield all had success through the mid 90's, and it wasnt because they were defying the laws of ageing.

 

Yeah, it's all about Tyson :-(

 

Holmes definitely had more time to tune up after Tyson, but still Tyson knocked him out in four rounds, which still stands on its own as a very impressive win. I dont think the outcome would have been any different if you switched the versions of Holmes that fought Holy and Tyson. Tyson at that time was just too fast and too dialed in.

 

No, many of them were underachieving because of losses they'd had even before Tyson fought them.

 

So you agree with my point that beating Douglas would've been meaningful for Tyson if it could've happened right after he lost the title to Holyfield, correct?

 

Ill answer for him. Historically yes, but not as much as you seem to think.
At that time, very little given the circumstances.

 

Tucker, Tyrell Biggs, Micheal Spinks(who's already an ATG), Pinklon Thomas, Tubbs all would be better and ranked higher if it weren't for Tyson because all had tremedous talent. The whole point I'm trying to make is he was beating everyone at that time so covincingly that people like you wrote the victories off. And all of those fighter mentioned above were in the prime of their careers, came terrifc shape and determined to win when Tyson fought them

 

I don't think anyone 'writes off' some of Tysons best victories.

When ranking him against Holyfield however it's: 'one man destroyed them, one man beat some of them convincingly on points. One man proved his longevity more.'

Who d'ya like?

Personally I have Holyfield above at Heavy but can see the case for Tyson.

Actually preparing a little piece called 'Holyfields Legacy' where I am trying to rebuff some of the criticisms aimed at him. I think some are there to be made, but when being compared to a fighter who was much more flawed in Tyson (not as his peak, this is after all a debate about their 'all-time' standings)

 

Right because they had different styles and physical strengths too.
Tyson blew guys away and Holyfield broke guys down. Holyfield certainly had to work harder, and like you said his longevity and mental toughness has to put him above Tyson all time, but Tyson is certainly a great fighter in my book. He was one of the most unique controlled brawlers Ive ever seen when he had the whole Cus D Amato Kevin Rooney system clicking.

 

No, most of them wouldn't, because of other losses or shortcomings that happened either before and/or after the fights with Tyson. Simply being talented doesn't warrant a higher ranking.

Which is a questionable point at best, as it fails to address the prior losses or other circumstances around some of those fighters that were there even before Tyson entered the picture.

No, all of them weren't. Thomas had already suffered his embarrassing upset loss to Berbick and looked unimpressive in his comeback fight against Hosea, and Spinks and Tubbs each weighed in about 10 pounds over their ideal weights. You'd have a better case for arguing Tyson was at his best against Douglas than those guys were against Tyson.

 

Spinks body already grew into that weight, he already was at heavyweight for 3 yrs., so I don't know what your talking about.(unless your trying to tell me he didn't come in shape when him and Tyson fought:roll Thomas didn't have Dundee when he loss to Berbick but he did when he fought Tyson, and Thomas showed up like he did when he beat Witherspoon. Now your are right that some of them didn't show up to fight at times, but you can say that about any fighter that his great ability.(you can compsensate no coming in 100& with good boxing ability, than coming in shape with no skills) And Tubbs was always a big guy, with not a great lookin body. His speed was tremedous, even at a mere 240Ibs. He looked great when he fought Tyson, before he got caught, and would of beat most fighters that night.(infact a shot Tubbs outboxed Riddick Bowe who than went on to become heavyweight champion)

As for Tucker and Biggs, neither one of them loss prior to fighting Tyson, and Tucker had stopped and in shape Douglas, even lighter than the one Tyson fought. But yea your right, These guys were underacheivers.