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

The same could be said for people who rate Frazier above Foreman. I'm sure you'd have no qualms with that.

 

I'd rather not spend any time arguing 'for' Tyson in any situation (especially against The Deal) but Holyfield never put togther a decent unbeaten run at heavyweight in the 90s- a loss was always seemingly just around the corner.

 

Thinking about it Mac, I have always rated George ahead of Joe primarily because of the hidings he gave him. So maybe I should rate Holy higher?* I think the regaining the title aspect clinched it for Foreman there though.








* File Under: Looking for excuse to rate Evander above Gay Mike.

 

Seriously, I've always had a problem with the win-lose-win-lose type of champion. I've never rated Robinson as #1 middleweight because of it. Crtics laud fighters like this when it's champs with the reputation of Ray and, in some cases, Evander, yet lambast them when a similar thing happens to the likes of Jimmy Carter, Marvin Johnson, etc.

 

Conteh nailed it perfectly with the comparison to Frazier/Foreman's rankings. I can't make it more clear than that.

 

I said in the 90s if you'd have read it properly. That's when he in the 'championship' era or, at least, top contender zone. If we're talking pre-title, he never looked totally comfortable with Dokes, struggled too much with Stewart too. His power looked non-existent vs Thomas and Tillis.

 

Holyfield is just another way to spell H E A R T. Tyson is appropriately the name of the world's largest processor and marketer of chicken.

Naturally, I have a tremendous bias in favor of Evander simply because he posted a great 15 round decision win over stylistic ATG headache Qawi. Holy came off the deck to go the limit with Bowe, scored a resourceful verdict over him, then dropped Big Daddy for the first time in his career. Unlike Tyson, a post prime Holy was also able to compete well against Lennox, and actually improved on his intitial performance in their rematch. He took out once beaten Dokes after Dynamite had produced the finest display of his post championship career.

Longevity, longevity, longevity. Like Dempsey, Tyson's prime simply didn't last that long. Unlike Dempsey though, Tyson could never get up to win. He has prevailed against world class heavyweight competition for a couple of decades now, from Tillis and Thomas in 1988 to Savarese in June of this year.

Holyfield was hampered by a malfunctioning heart muscle when he lost to Moorer, yet still put him on the deck, and forced MM to settle for a majority win. He was already past 31 when he lost to Moorer. MM was not yet 30 when Holy dropped him three times in their rematch, avenging his earlier loss with an emphatic stoppage win. He handed Mercer the first knockdown of his career. He dropped superheavyweight Lou Savarese twice in retiring him. Truly has the guts of a champion.

 

But Tyson was a fighting champion (unlike Dempsey).

 

Did you actually read his post or just flip a **** once you saw the name Dempsey?

 

Indeed, but his dominance makes up for that in my book.

 

:yep