Who is better as a boxer - Tyson or Hollyfield

there 2 versions of Tyson,i think the 1st version and Holyfield are about even...the 2nd version of Tyson doesnt match up to Holy

 

Tayson and Hollyfield? :huh

 

:rofl Cut him some slack, it's his first post.

 

its definitely holyfield

 

Evander clearly for me.

 

For me it's Tyson, all day long. He was about the perfect combination of speed, movement, defense, footwork and power. He wasn't the type to come in behind a jab and throw a straight right, so he might not be the most 'textbook' kind of fighter, but his handspeed and power were such that he didn't need to be.

Holyfield I see as a more conventional fighter, the better jabber, but he was also prone to using his head and elbows (Tyson also guilty of elbow use) and he wrestled a lot more. Holyfield had by far the better mental strength and discipline (post-Rooney/D'Amato) and also the stronger will, but for my money Tyson was about as perfect a boxing machine from about 86-88 as anyone out there, especially for a heavyweight.

 

I think it's closer than many might think. Tyson's fundamentals were excellent, right down to his very underrated jab and footwork.
The difference was that Tyson could only fight coming forward, whereas Holyfield could go toe-to-toe, side to side or backwards. Basically, he was more versatile.

But in terms of actual technique, it's pretty close. Tyson may even have the edge because of his superior defensive abilities.

 

No need for agruement... Holy has the kit. Jabs, defence, attack, CONTROL, movement, fitness, combinations at a sustained level, chin, stamina and persona to Psyche any man on his day.

 

which of these did a prime Tyson not have, at at least as good a level if not better than Holyfield, aside from the jab?

 

tyson had more skills than holyfield, but holy was the more complete fighter...if that makes sense to y'all.....(im talking about the peak tyson, the one that fought for 5 minutes in the eighties....)...

 

Prime Tyson. Absolutely.