Who will rank higher in the greatest of all time list Mike Tyson or Evander Holyfield ?

I'm not sure about Wlad but Mike Tyson was on them for sure.

Frank Zane a 3 times Mr Olympia was 5'9 and weighed 200lbs off season (at similar levels of body fat as Tyson) and was roided to the gills. Some people say that Tyson is actually 5'9 and not 5'10 but either way to weigh 220lbs at 5'9 - 5'10 is insane.

 

Let’s just assume both were totally roided. Evander was a skinny muscular dude before he packed on all the muscle. Still had to fight much bigger men and he took some major shots. Granite chin, maybe ATG chin at the weight. Roids didn’t give him that chin. Tyson was more dominant in his prime but bad decisions outside the ring made that prime too short. Evander was great for longer but was never as good as prime Tyson.

 

Kinda sorta but not really. Taller, longer reach, more weight... Klitschko is the bigger man. Pounds per inch? 3.08 for Wlad at 6'6" and 240 Lbs. and 3.14 for Tyson at 5'10" (he was listed as tall as 5'11 1/2" though) and 220 Lbs. (his best weight was just a few Lbs. lighter though). Let's try 5'11 and 214 Lbs. for Tyson... you come up with 3.01 pounds per inch... just .07 less than Wlad.

 

ruddock was better when he fought Mike

The Tyson fights took it's toll on the guy

Look how many crisp, hard punches he took over the two fights?

The two guys were throwing continuous bombs at each other

The Tyson that beat Thomas would beat any version of Evander

Mike is overrated by some, but he is also hugely underrated by many as well

i'm not saying it's impossible that Evander would win, as he was a sensational fighter, that had the heart and toughness to stand up to Tyson

But Tyson under rooney was capable of keeping a level head and did not necessary need a knock out to win

He could win on points if needs be

 

X times champ has little meaning. It’s good that you became champ again, but it means you lost your title all those times minus the time you got it for the first time.

 

I personally believe Tyson's 86-90 run, hell I'll even say up through 91 run was better than Holyfield's runs at HW. This includes his first or second "real" reign including the wins over Tyson who we should all be able to objectively admit was faded and only Tyson in name.

I don't think Holyfield beats 86-91 Tyson, history will only remember that Holyfield beat the man who first beat Tyson, then actually beat Tyson (shell of himself or not) twice.

Holy will no doubt rank higher historically.

 

Might fuck around and RBR both of their fights.

This content is protected

Hell...both their comprehensive careers? Is that too ambitious? I'm only unemployed until February third.

 

This.

(Assuming we don't factor in PEDs).

 

Holyfield.

 

it doesnt work by pounds per inch because its cubic when you increase height generally the limbs get longer and the frame is larger...

7 foot people arent the same width as 6 foot people

besides in BB circles generally if a guy is an inch or so taller than you ..you count around 10 pounds per inch in height increase to account for typical increases in surface area and limb length etc

So if Tyson is 5 ft 10 at 220 Wlads equivalent should be 220 + (8 x 10) = 300

So 300 at 6’6 sounds right if same Body fat as Tyson to be equivalent

 

I should support my home town boy holyfield here... but I just can't. Tyson for me was better at his focused peak however short it may have been.

 

Holyfield

 

I just asked Jack and he said YES to both.

I have no idea who Cardi B is.

 

Holyfield. Better resume, better career. Mike Tyson went on a incredible tear up (13 fights in 1986 alone) but his prime was short. Holyfield has 2 h2h wins on him as well, can't see any reason why Tyson would be higher either than his influence out of the ring.

 

Holyfield has the clearly more impressive resume and the head to head wins.