Who should rate higher Tyson or Holyfield?

For marijuana, not roids.

 

I am highly skeptical recreational drugs were the only things he was using the whizzinator to try and hide. Tyson was not of the moral character to be above taking drugs to gain an unfair advantage.

The fact is by his own admission he used a fake ***** with someone else urine to pass drug tests while using banned substances his whole career.

Now Hoyfield has never tested positive in a drug test and claims that he used drugs are merely circumstantial so I find it highly hypocritical that one would rank down Holyfield but not Tyson.

 

That's clearly an assumption that has one leg to stand on. The fact that an Evan Fields accepted pharmaceuticals at his own doorstep is better evidence than a whizzer that didn't work one time where there were traces of marijuana, and not PEDs.

I'm not saying Tyson never took banned substances, where it seems to be the norm since the 90's. Tyson was 200 plus lbs. since his early days as a teenager. But if you accuse Tyson of use, mise well accuse the whole heavyweight division of the 90's (sans Vaughn & Butter Bean).

 

We do not know who used, & undoubtedly some did that we do not know about But maybe the majority used-though I have no evidence for that-& maybe not nearly that.
Also Butterbean could have used-you can be really fat & taking steroids for strength & muscle. just covered by fat.

But yes, there is NO comparison of pot to steroids or hgh. That like alcohol will only hurt your performance.

Holyfield answered the phone when they called "Evan Fields" phone #.
Tyson was naturally bulky.

 

I agree. The Butterbean quip was simply a joke, apologies for it being a bad one. I personally don't mark Holyfield down for his supposed HGH use since it is speculation (even though there's believable evidence stating the contrary). Look at someone like Shannon Briggs. Even Lennox Lewis bulked up later in his career. But this happens with age, whether naturally or genetically modified. Cheating happens through out the world's history with most of it being covered up. History is written by the winner...

For me Holyfield never had that dominance that most of my Top 10 had. It's odd that I rank Holy 5 places lower than Tyson, but the fighters I have between them are so close in ranking that anyone with the right criteria can conceivably be ranked as high as that coveted #3 spot.

 

-Tyson beat Ruddock and Bruno two times.
Seldon was reigning champion.Obviously it was a good win by Tyson.
(Especially because Seldon was ripped and muscular as hell.)
Originally Tyson beat Golota.

-The 42 years old Holmes and the 42 years old Foreman weren good
wins by Holyfield.
The unbeaten Biggs,Ferguson,Ribalta,Nielsen ,M. Frazier wins by Tyson were far better wins than this overrated Mercer win by Holyfield.
(What was Mercer's best win? The glass-chinned Morrison?)

-Are you an idiota? Dokes win was crap by Holyfield.
Considering Ruddock and Bowe could beat this crap Dokes by TKO.

-Douglas? **** you idiota ! Douglas' weight was far away from his best fighting weight 225-235 pounds. Douglas win wasn't good win by Holyfield at all.(A right time right place win.)
Mercer wasn't good win by Holyfield.The 42 years old Holmes beat
the unbeaten Mercer.
-Holyfield beat Tyson two times.(But the rematch was a joke.)
-Was Ruiz good win by Holyfield ? I doubt it.
-Rahman ? Hm..
-Bowe beat Holyfield two times.They beat eachother.This isn't so good win.

All in all you weren't objective at all.**** you !
No thanx for the brainwash !atsch

 

Shouldnt you be at school?

 

I just count cruiserweight achievements towards their heavyweight run.

For me, Tyson is a tad higher. But they both have differing attributes and achievements that mean it's really a case of 'what do you like'?

 

of course azzer comes into an argument that had NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM. why do you always stand up for your fellow tysonites/alts? don't you get tired of pulling the same **** over and over and over again?

 

here is sangria's top 10
Louis
Ali
Holmes
Johnson
Marciano
Tyson
Lewis
Foreman
Dempsey
Frazier
Holyfield
Liston
Wlad
Jeffries
atsch:rofl what a ****ing joke tyson's not even in the top ten imo.

 

sorry but tyson's not a top ten. ahead of frazier and liston? that win over ali put frazier above tyson in legacy. even if you can't take it that's the truth. sorry to burst your bubble... http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...tyson-is-not-a-top-10-heavyweight-of-all-time while my list is different than this one, and some fighters are ranked to low imo, its a very decent list.

 

Tyson is not a top ten ATG. No top ten ATG's are past it at the age of 24. Top ten ATG's aren't KO'd by the likes of Buster Douglas. Top ten ATG's don't have their best wins over a washed up, fat former great and a light heavyweight.

You know Frazier had a dominant win over a ATG light heavy too? Bob Foster, but that doesn't get mentioned much because he also had wins over great heavyweights. Tyson faced two great heavyweights and they both knocked him out. People say he wasn't in his prime when he fought Lewis, well then he probably shouldn't have ducked him for years then, should he?

 

You know you want me. Just wanna hold me. You think I'm gorgeousth!

 

I hope you realize we're all just putting up with you

 

what are you talking about?:huh