Tyson Above Holyfield - Can It Be Justified?

I nearly forgot to answer you. Sorry

Well, you are talking as if the 90s fighter would have no skill. That´s not true. In my oppinion aside from the very top the talent pool of every decade is very similar. Same with the 80s and 90s. The talent pool is very similar with, perhaps, a slight edge for the 80s.
BUT the difference is the 80s overall just showed less motivation and dedication and thus underachieved. While ht 90s showed both and even so they may have been a bit less talented they just were better.
On top of that, on the very top the 90s were better: Prime Lewis, Bowe and hw Holyfield, a still very good Tyson, rising Wladimir and Vitali Klitschko tops Prime Holmes and Tyson, Witherspoon and fading 70s´ fighters like Shavers.
Just my oppinion.

I never said the 90s were in great shape all the time. But on average in better shape than the 80s hws.
I agree and disagree. Many 80s fighters continued in the 90s and with some success but that just adds to the 90s and not the 80s.
Aside from Rahman those guys weren´t the cremé delá cremé of the 90s but at best contenders and most of the time fringe contenders and gate keepers.

I agree, also I think you sell Rahman a bit short.

I wouldn´t compare Grant grant to Tubbs and Thomas. Those played a similar role that Tyson and the late 90s Klitschkos played.

Well, Holyfield is a 90s hw not a 80s hw. Tyson is as much a 90s fighter as he is a 80s fighter.
That leaves you with Holmes, Witherspoon and Foreman. All of them had some good fights in the 90s but that´s it. Foreman actually is the only one had real success and just after getting whooped his arse until the knockout. The rest of his career in the 90s consists of stifs and gifts. Still respect to all of these fighters but using their "success" to demonstrate the supremacy of the 80s over the 90s hws just doesn´t work out.


On a sidenote:
I have the impression you grew up with the 80s fighters so I assume you have some bias towards them. Am I right? Nothing bad about it. I have some bias towards the 30s fighters - although I didn´t grow up with them

 

Nah just feel the 80's guys were better overall equipped fighters. Its like they stopped teaching the mid 90s guys certain aspects of the game, specifically infighting and movement.
Tyson started his pro career in 85 and had something like 36 fights before 1990. I would say he was an 80's fighter.
Holyfield was also a cruiser in the 80's and did "most" of his best work pre 95 as a heavyweight.
Like I said I think the transition was officially made around 95 with the new generation and the olympic guys Izon, Maskaev, Tua etc.
You started to see less emphasis on movement and infighting and almost all the guys fought in a somewhat one dimensional flat footed plodding manner, give or take a couple.
You almost forget guys like James Douglas Tony Tucker, and Tyrell Biggs were all in that 6'4-6'5 range by the way they moved around the ring and you didnt see those guys weighing in for fights in the 250 range either which suggests maybe the 90's guys werent as well conditioned as they could have been because of their fighting style.

 

sure. tysons reign from 86-90 was arguably the most impressive in history. definitely the most exciting, he never once came to close to getting beat by anyone. he just destroyed guys. holyfield was very inconsitent

 

Most of those 36 fighters were stiffs on his way up. I´d say he fought as many (fringe) contenders in the 90s than in the 80s.

Yeah, Holy was a cruiser in the 80s, we are talking hws. And all of his hw work was done in the 90s.

Officially? You mean some official guy turned up in 95 and said "the 80s are over, now the 90s start".?

The early 90s are still 90s and not the 80s. And I disagree that the talent level dropped. See post #151 for my oppinion on that.

Less infighting is true. But less movement? Come on ... Lewis, Vitali, Wlad, Byrd, Holyfield, shall I go on? There were plenty of guys with good movement. Infighting became more and more obsolet because more and more bigger fighters turned up who fought similar to Lewis, meaning they used their size to keep their opponent at bay and when they come into range tied them up. That does not make them worse. They just used the tools they had at hands.

Sorry but that part just shows how biased you are. The 80s were all big and good movers while the 90s fighters were all just plodding. That´s just not true.

Well, it´s the resume and longevity of Holyfield against the dominance of Tyson. Tyson was only consistent in the 80s but not so much in the 90s, overall not enough to make a difference imo.
Personally, I take Holyfield.

 

H2H Holyfield beat Tyson. And really, H2H Holyfield could have beaten the same men Tyson did. Holyfield was the greatest Cruiserweight of all time, and then became a 4x HW champion as well. There is no comparison, this is a no contest. Holyfield PWNS Tyson.

 

[

Your calling me biased? He unified all three titles separately in the 80's!

THats why I said around mid 94-95 the transition was complete

Yes I pointed that out, but personally I see a big difference from the two. It was a real transition starting in the early part of the 90's. By mid 94-95 you could see a very realistic style change in the top contenders which has carried on and gotten to todays horrid state.

Again your putting Holyfield in a place I dont have him. Would you agree even Holyfield was less of a mover by the mid 90's because of his age? Wlad and Vitali were pretty much a non factor until the late 90's and more of a world class factor since 2000 till now. I believe they turned pro in 96-97?? I said there was exceptions to the rule, Byrd and Lewis were two of them with Lewis being the dominant force of that time period because of his complete skillset.

Its my opinion, it has nothing to do with me trying to downplay anyones accomplishments, just a stylistic change I saw happen and why I see one generation as better than the other. I believe overall the guys that came into contention around 95-2000 were less coordinated and less equipped overall as fighters. They fought slower, more flat footed and showed little dimension to their game.

[/QUOTE]
Agree with this.

 

Holyfield wasn't inconsistent until his 30's. Hell, he was undefeated from late '84 to late '92. Tyson lost for the first time in '90 at age 23.

Both men had 10 World Title fight wins before their first defeat...

Holyfield was the Undisputed CW and HW Champ. He was 6-0 (5) in CW World Title fights and 4-0 (2) in HW World Title fights before losing his first pro fight. During this time he went 28-0 (22) overall and had wins over Hall of Famers Qawi (W15 and KO4), Foreman (W12), and Holmes (W12).

Tyson was the Undisputed HW Champ. He was 10-0 (8) in HW World Title fights before losing his first pro fight. During this time he went 37-0 (33) overall and had wins over Hall of Famers M. Spinks (KO1) and Holmes (KO4).

Holyfield=inconsistent... really???

Keep in mind that Holyfield won a World Title in his 12th pro fight vs. Hall of Famer Dwight Qawi. Tyson fought more often but vs. lower level fighters on his way up.

Both had great resumes during this period... I just think Holyfield was always a little better than Tyson... most people just didn't realize it at the time.

 

Which is a very good achievement! I would never deny this.

You have a point there. But read what I wrote earlier. The change in style doesn´t mean the new crop was worse like you seem to think. It´s just a different style due to more big heavyweights emerging who tend to tie you up on the inside instead of infighting.
However that doesn´t change the fact that the 90s start in 1990 and not in 1996.

Well, that´s your oppinion. I beg to differ. Holyfield fought more in the 90s than the 80s. So he is at least as much of a 90s fighter as a 80s fighter.
Yeah, Holy moved less in the second half of the 90s but does that neglect his skills of the first half? Aside he still moved pretty well when he wanted despite his age.
The Klitchkos where on the rise in the late 90s. That´s what I wrote. They started to becoming contenders and Vitali even winning a belt in the 90s.
So, according to you we have at least 5 exceptions to the rule then?

That´s something I don´t agree with. There was a new breed of fighters coming up, yeah. They fought a bit different than the fighters before them, yeah. They neglected some parts of the game and chose other parts over those, yeah. but they weren´t any worse than the fighters before them.
Actually, I don´t think the average talent nowadays is worse than in the 70s. At the very top, there is a difference - and it´s not that small - but on the contender, fringe contender level the difference is marginal if it even exists.

 

In Tyson's favour,there may be the common opponent syndrome. Holyfield posted clear,yet messy wins over veteran versions of Holmes and Foreman. Tyson destroyed Holmes,and in my opinion would have done the same to a 42 year old Foreman. I'm equally convinced,however that prime for prime Holyfied would still have beaten Tyson.

 

Whats more effective? Infighting is another dimension to a boxers offensive skillset, tieing up is not.

The Klitschkos were on the rise but they were not in the main mix. The main contenders around this period I am referring to, who were regularly showcased on HBO/Showtime against fellow contenders, and facing the then champion Lennox Lewis and fighting in the top ten were guys like
Obed Sullivan, Mike Grant, David Tua, David Izon, Oleg Maskaev, Lou Savarese, Danell Nicholson, Shannon Briggs, Andrew Golota, John Ruiz, Chris Byrd, and Hasim Rahman, and Larry Donald. The Klitschkos were non factors fighting more obscure lower tiered opponents in Europe. Vitali won his WBO title against Obed Sullivan about 20 days before 2000. Up until that point with exception to maybe Herbie Hide, he fought noone of merit.

 

Not right. For Wlad tieing you up is better. He is a long range fighter and tires you uot by tieing you up and lean on you - Valuev does similar things. You maybe prefer infighting but that does not mean it´s better.

Read what I wrote "the rising Klitschkos". And no beeing televised on HBO/Showtime does not mean you are a contender while beeing not means you are not one. America is not the only nation on this planet. Oh, and I would add Schulz for Wlad on your "fighters with merits the Klitschkos fought" list.

Btw. half of those guys you mentioned have actually decent movement

 

Still disagree and part of my main point. What happens when an opponent takes away the distance? What happens when Wlad was forced to fight inside? This is what Im referring to. You saw what happened, he was lost and got his butt kicked by a 24-13 fighter and then two more times.

I didnt say that or mean that, but the guys who were ranked and in the fighting mix of the WBC WBA and IBF. Were talking about the challengers to the title, the fighters that Lennox Lewis primarily faced. Wasnt the start of this debate comparing the fighters that Tyson and Lewis banged out their legacies on?

 

Have you seen those three times? Against Purrity Wlad had announced his first twelve rounder. Purrity is known for his good stamina, chin and decent power. Wlad never wenter beyond 8 rounds and that only once. Additionally he fought at least once a month then. That was bad match-making to begin with. What happened in that fight was Wlad using Ross as a punching bag until he ran out of gas and Purrity taking advantage of that. Has nothing to do with the infighting skills of "the boss" - or Wlad´s chin.
Similar his fight with Brewster. Lamon was a punching bag for Wlad in the early rounds. Brewster just started to land when Wlad gassed. Here also: Wlad didn´t get beaten by Brwester because of his infighting skills but because he was wrong conditioned by his trainer.
Sanders blitzed him. The only fight where you could say his chin betrayed him. But even there the punch came from the outside not the inside.

btw. Brewster, Sanders and Purrity are fighters of the second half of the 90s or 00s. According to you those fighters can´t infight :hey

No it actually was about Tyson and Holyfield. Got a bit out of hand

This point was btw. about you writing there guys in the second half of the 90s couldn´t move and infight.

 

So Wlad should get a pass for losing in his first 12 round fight because it was his first time and a bad style matchup? And he should get a pass for gassing out against Brewster? The reason he gassed is because he couldnt adjust, he couldnt move, he couldnt fight on the inside or tie up and take the time he needed to recoup.
It has everything with Wlad showing how one dimensional he was at that time and the main point Im making about alot of these other fighters. Your making excuses by saying "bum rushed" "ran out of gas" and "blitzed". The ability to deal with these type of offensive threats at any stage of a fight makes a more well rounded fighter especially a championship level one. Your making my point. A good portion of the 80's fighters were prepared to adjust by knowing another aspect of boxing. Infighting, moving, etc. You saw less and less of that and more one dimensional fighters, and mostly plodders at the world class level.
BTW Brewster Sanders and Purrity just used basic brawling to stop Wlad in their respective fights.

Ill just add again that its easier to fight a guy who stands in front of you than it is a guy who can move fight inside and out. The debate is switching from Lewis to Holyfield to Tyson to now Klitschko which is getting confusing.
My main point which Im sticking by is that the fighters of the mid 90s showed less dimension to their game. They had more physical size, but most of them didnt use it their advantage like Lewis learned and Wlad did as well later down the line. They were slower, and didnt offer as diverse of a stylistic challenge to the then dominating champion Lennox Lewis in my opinion, and thats why I believe the 80's challengers specifically for a champion of Mike Tysons attributes offered a more diverse and stiffer challenge stylistically for him and any champion for that matter. Just look at who gave Lewis the most problems in his career.

 

You don´t get my point at all. I´m not excusing Wlad - well for the first loss I do excuse him partly. But he did not lose to those guys because he can´t infight but because he was wrong conditioned - a fault of his and his trainer - and his subpar chin colliding with the fist of a fighter with speed and power - from longrange.
However, Wlad is pretty one dimensional. As was Frazier. As was Tyson. That does not mean those guys are bad fighters.
Yeah, I agree certain aspects of the game aren´t seen that often today. Because they aren´t needed or they use different tactics. Sorry but most of today´s fighters would have hold their own in the 80s.