Who do you rank higher at heavyweight : Tyson or Holyfield ?

Best fighters both men beat and how:

Holyfield:

Thomas :washed up, on film it is clear he is far from what he was against Tyson.

Dokes : outstanding win.

Stewart 2x :fringe contender, Tyson blew him away in 1, although Alex insists that Holyfield punched harder :roll:.

Douglas: Holyfield looked impressive although Buster came to collect his pay check and was overweight.

Foreman: Foreman was old and frankly i'm not too impressed by him at his comeback, lost to Holyfield&Morrison, had struggles against fringe contenders Stewart, Schulz and Savarese, but did manage to beat Moorer and Briggs. Holyfield dominated him though and Foreman was a ranked contender so this is a solid win.

Holmes Holmes, like Foreman was old but unlike Foreman, he had earned his title shot, by beating Mercer. Holyfield won about 9 rounds and didn't allow the veteran to make him fight his fight. Good win.

Bowe Great win, although it should be noted that Holyfield lost the trilogy. I always get the impression Holyfield could've won the trilogy (arguably by 3-0) if he choose to box Bowe instead of mixing it up. Whenever he boxed, he easily controlled the action. During the third fight, Holyfield seemed to have done too much weight training or steroids.. at any rate, during the first rounds, i thought we'd see a repetition of the second fight. In that sense, Holyfield was a bit unlucky, but in the end, it should count against his legacy nonetheless.

Moorer This was a good win, but he also lost to Moorer which knocks on his consistency and legacy, because Michael Moorer isn't supposed to beat Holyfield despite a knockdown by Holyfield.

Mercer Excellent win. Mercer was inconsistent, but always game and no one else (including Lennox Lewis) managed to floor Mercer in his prime. The fight wasn't a walkover however, as some people seem to think.

Czyz Decent win over a good commentator.

Tyson 2x Needless to say, these were great wins. Tyson looked as good and fast as he ever did in his three round demolishment of Bruno a few months earlier. Holyfield boxed masterfully, smart, controlled and got the better of Tyson but smart blocking, ducking, slipping and counter punching. The 6th round knockdown is legendary as well as the entire fight. Holyfield was something like a 20-to-1 underdog but pulled it out; a sign of greatness.

Bean Decent win.

Ruiz Good win, Ruiz has a pretty good resume and is a pain in the ass to fight (or watch). He did lose and draw in two other fights against Ruiz.

Rahman Good win, Holyfield was past his best and still beat a contender. The win was a bit questionable , but this wasn't the first time Holyfield used his head.

Other notable business: Although he lost fair and square, he stayed on his feet for 24 rounds against Lewis, not counting the thrown-down. At age 45, despite losing nearly every round, he gave a decent showing in going the distance with a young, fresh top contender in Ibragimov.



Tyson:


Berbick Excellent win. Berbick was a solid contender and beltholder who was very durable. In my opinion, Tyson never threw better combinations than in this fight. Berbick knocked down three times by one punch, and out in 2 rounds is very impressive.

Smith Good win. Boring fight because Smith fought to survive rather than to win, but Smith was a hard puncher and a pretty good fighter+belt holder nonetheless.

Thomas Excellent win. Thomas might have earlier beaten Holmes had he been given the opportunity and is generally considered to be the #4 or #3 heavyweight of the 80's. He had declined a bit compared to his performance against Weaver, but was still a capable fighter. He nearly got knocked out in the first but came back strong to make it an about even contest untill Tyson opened up more in the 6th and scored a vicious knockout over a very durable opponent.

Tucker Good win. Tucker was very talented but also lacked fire and wasn't matched with many top fighters which makes his record look better than it is. IBF title holder.

Biggs Decent win. Biggs was undefeated but had a few struggles going into this fight. The way Tyson broke him down was impressive, but his record after this fight isn't pretty.

Holmes Great win. If Holmes had rightfully gotten the verdict in his rematch with Spinks, he would've beaten every man he faced up to here. He was 37 years old of course. Words that Holmes was there purely for the money and went in there without training are historic revisionism; Holmes was pulling for the fight several months before and said he'd been training for a long time and wanted to come back to be champ again, not just for the money. No one ever did to Holmes what Tyson did, in the fifteen years before or after that. A prime Holyfield couldn't close the show against a 42 years old Holmes (though he did win convingly).

Tubbs Good win. Tubbs was pretty good and arguably should've gotten the decision against Bowe. That was three years later. Beautiful one-punch knockout.

Spinks Good win. I'm not that impressed by Spinks' work at heavyweight, but the one-sided way in which he was annihilated certainly was impressive.

Bruno 2x Good win. Bruno lost often when stepping up, but his power gave him a shot against anyone.

Williams Good win. Williams had excellent boxing skill but a weak chin, which Tyson showed by another beautiful one-punch TKO after slipping a jab.

Stewart Decent destruction of a fringe-contender.

Tillman Decent win. Nice one-punch KO.

Ruddock 2x Excellent wins. Tyson seemed to look for the one bomb too much, but rather comfortably beat the hard punching Ruddock who stood up to him. I added that last sentence because some people believe that anyone who stood up to Tyson, beat him. Only the inverse of that statement is true.

Seldon Decent win. Seldon layed down, but it's not Tyson's problem that Seldon got scared; in fact it's his accomplishment. Seldon was a beltholder.

Botha Decent win. Botha was giving Tyson a lot of trouble untill he landed a one punch KO.

Golota Good win. Tyson was past it somewhat and repeated what only Lewis did to Golota: destroy him early.


Other notable business: Tyson had a tendency to lose fights he should've won. 44-1 to Douglas, 20-to-1 to Holyfield who was rightfully considered washed up.


You be the judge. Whoever you pick, i say they're very close.

 

two atgs in holmes and spinks were decimated. And Holyfield was 2-1 over moorer, 1-2 with Bowe, 0-1-1 against Lewis.

He beat a faded tyson twice, great wins, but it was almost 10 years after Tysons prime.

 

Just as a matter of debate, what fighters would you regard as favourites against a peak Tyson. Here's my version of events (using the other fighters from my Top 15)...

Tyson loses to:
Ali
Liston
Louis
Holmes
Holyfield (Stylewise. 1990-onwards.)

50/50 fight:
Lewis
Foreman
Frazier

He beats:
Johnson
Marciano
Dempsey
Jeffries
Bowe
Patterson

Truth be told I'm not a Tyson nuthugger by any stretch (nor do I wish to be lumped in with some of the more embarassing general forum bunch), but seriously peak Tyson was a fine, fine fighter and I just don't think that many HW's should be regarded as "stong faves" against him.

Feel free to have a rattle and state your views if you so wish?! :good

 

Tyson. Reason: Evander was never capable of putting together a decent run of consecutive wins at championship level. As much as I was a 'Deal' fan, he was kinda like the Jimmy Carter of the diviison: 'wins when the underdog, loses when you expect him to win'.

 

Thank you, this is why I rank Tyson above Holyfield when it comes to ATG at heavy , Louis , Lewis , Ali , Johnson and the like all dominated an era. Some people like to argue that Tyson never dominated an era , because the period of time he dominated was not long enough to be classed as an 'era'. But look at how often Tyson was fighting in the 80's and you can make the argument. And Tyson was so good during that time. All the guys who dominated their era (not just at heavy) had sort of an x-factor - the character that they showed by dominating the era and emerging as the number 1 of the time. Holyfield never did this (he did at cruiser though) , his best time was the bridging the gap period between Tyson and Lewis , and he never established himself as the undisputed number 1, he lost 2 outta 3 to Bowe and lost 1 to Moorer . There was not a dominater of the division after Tyson until Lewis. This is my argument on why Tyson belongs with the elite (the very best - Ali , Louis etc.) of the division and Holyfield is a ATG.

Tyson's weakness is not one in the ring but mental strength

 

With Holyfield, he has two solid arguments; he beat Tyson twice and he maintained relavancy in the division more recently (not necessarily longer) than Tyson did. Yes he was certainly more dramatic in terms of pulling of miracle victories and rising above the ashes but in terms of dominance and consistency Tyson definately edges him.

With Tyson; he unified the belts one by one (has never been replicated since) by beating the Beltholders/Champion's AND thier predecessors. He did a finer job in cleaning out the division and he always won decisively. Tyson's overall body of work IMO is more impressive than Evander's although I believe that if we pull out single great wins then Evander edges him.


I rank ATG Champions by:

1. Tenure as Champion
2. Quality of Opposition
3. Ability as a Fighter


1. Tyson's tenure as champ was far more impressive than Evander's in a sense that Tyson had a better reign. Holyfield was never the undisputed #1 at any point in his career even when he beat Tyson.

2. Tyson's overall body of work as champion is better than Evanders but Holyfield has better single victories than Tyson.

3. I believe that Tyson has far more natural ability than Holyfield, But Holyfield on several occasions was able to win with more than just ability.

 

tyson unquestionably. his title reign, dominance of the 1980s was by far bigger accomplishments than anything holy acheieved. head to head at his peak tyson matches up better than holy does against the rest of the field and tyson beats holy h2h IMO both at peaks.


I rate Mike Tyson # 6, and Evander Holyfield # 15

 

Draw with lewis haha, by the way spinks would have had a great shot at beating holyfield, so i would discredit that win.

 

I personally don't think they are that far apart. Rating either one 7 or 8 spots above the other is showing bias in my opinion.

In terms of rating I have to put Holyfield slightly higher due to his h2h wins, and his longivity at the top. To me these count for a great deal. Yes, Tyson was more dominate when he was champ, it was for a relatively short period of time, and once he lost that mantle of invincibility, he never seemed to over come that completely. Certainly, when Tyson was in his early 20's he had all the tools to perhaps be the GOAT, but you can't rate someone on their potential, you have to use actual accomplishments. And on this basis, Holyfield is the better of the two. I'd rate Holyfield around 7-8th all time and Tyson around 10th.

 

The most objective way to rank a ATG Champion is

1. Tenure as Champ:
-Holyfield beats Buster Douglas for the title KO3
-Tyson beats Trevor Berbick for the title TKO2

edge = Tyson

After winning the title Evander's next 20 fights are:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

After winning the title Tyson's next 20 fights are:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Look at the fighters that they beat and who they were at the time they fought you'll see that Tyson's overall body of work is better although in single great performances Holyfield edges him.

Look at thier reigns. Tyson's reign is perceived as short because of the time frame in which it happened. But 9 consecutive title defenses is more than what Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney, Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Liston, Foreman, Norton, Holyfield or Lewis can account for.

Holyfield on the other hand didnt have that type of reign. Look at his 20 fights after winning the title; There is nothing there that indicates that Holyfield had a "reign". It showed that he was able to pull out some great wins over Bowe and Tyson himself but no real dominance.

Tyson on the other hand showed dominance and consistency.

2. Quality of Opposition

Top 10 fighters that Holyfield beat (at Heavyweight): Tyson 2x, Bowe, Mercer, Moorer, Dokes, Foreman, Holmes, Rahman, Ruiz, Stewart.

Top 10 fighters that Tyson beat: Ruddock 2x, Thomas, Holmes, Spinks, Golota, Tucker, Bruno, Botha, Biggs, Berbick.


3. Ability as a fighter

This is where Tyson has a clear advantage. To this day Tyson has the distinction of not only being the last Heavyweight to Top the p4p lists but he did so consecutively. This is probably the most subjective criteria but IMO Its Tyson's strongest point.

So overall I gotta go with Mike on this one.