Who deserves more credit for beating holmes? Tyson or Holyfield?

You could see tysons timing was way off against McNeely and Mathis - It was only against Bruno [2] that he started showing good form.

There is no doubt that tune up fights improve a boxers fighting ability, it should not even by discussed!

 

Tyson all the way.

Nobody should have been able to do that to Holmes at any stage of his career.

I also have a lot of trouble buying the idea that Holmes was better in the Holyfield fight.

 

Tyson hadn't fought in over 4 years with no sparring or gym time in prison. Holmes kept in shape and knew he would get an opportunity to face Tyson since 1986.

 

There is also no doubt that fighters age at different rates or should we compare Holmes showing against Tyson at age 39 with Tyson at 39 against McBride..............Does McBride deserve as much credit for beating Tyson as Tyson does against Holmes

No we shouldnt -Holmes, like Foreman came back with a second career and improved during it to have a second career prime which would be around the Mercer fight.

Nobody did what Tyson did to Holmes before because no half decent fighter got to fight a Holmes coming from a 2 year lay off..

 

Please note that Holmes was flattened by Tyson and gave Holyfield a good fight. Of course he'll say that he was in better shape for Holyfield! Otherwise it'll make him look bad.

He wasn't as soft against Tyson, and pretty much was much closer to his prime years.

Forget about ring rust, the fact that he gave Holyfield a good fight says it all really. The Tyson win was much more impressive in my opinion.

 

No...He retired - Then he came back for a fight for the world title - it was obvious he was going to be flattened - he'd never fought a title fight so far away from being fighting fit.

He then came back and sensibly had warm up fights - he then beat Mercer and gave prime Holyfield a better fight than Tyson gave past prime Holyfield.
I would say the Holy that beat Holmes would beat the Tyson that beat Holmes.

And a truly prime Holmes would beat either...

 

Their first fight was close, could have gone either way. If I'm one of the judges I'm finding a reason to make Holmes the close winner.

Holmes was better in the rematch but still a close fight. I thought Holmes won.

Holmes had been slipping though. He was past prime vs. Tyson, rusty, and lacked motivation in my opinion. I believe he thought he'd give Tyson a boxing lesson. I think he respected his power but felt he would be able to deal with it and win on points or maybe even late stoppage... Tyson proved to be better than that.

Holmes did make a comment before the fight... something like, "if Tyson does beat me he will self destruct soon after" I can't remember exactly but Holmes was right.

 

Well, it's not just that the actual fights help... it's everything that goes with a fight. The training camps, the strategy planning, being in the spot light and being able to deal with it, etc. The more fights, tune-ups or otherwise, the more training you're going to get. If you get thru these fights without getting too beat up, you can gain a lot. It's not always that the actual fight is helping... it's the fight and everything that goes with it.

I wouldn't advise not having a tune-up after a long lay off despite what guys like Leonard, V. Klitschko, Maske, etc. were able to do.

 

I think that goes without - but the Ali that Berbick beat was better than the Ali Holmes beat