Why a prime Tyson is better than both Lewis and Holyfield

Its called "Back From the Edge of Hell" that's been out for a few yrs now. I just found out about it earlier this yr tho lol.

 

Ahh right. I wasn't aware of it tbh, I'll keep eye out for it. I like to read about the 80 s guy s.

 

https://www.amazon.com.au/Back-Edge-Hell-Pinklon-Thomas/dp/0692978186

 

Tyson has himself named this his best performance and I can see why. Very mature as you say. Taking his time and not wasting anything for nothing and when the moment came...

 

I feel quite confident betting on Holy against Tyson seeing how their actual fights panned out. Yes, neither was prime, but the relatively little effect Tysons punches had on Holy is still telling. One would have to think that a ca 5 lbs lighter Holy of the early 90's had a much weaker punch resistance while those extra 5 lbs on Tyson didn't make him at all a harder hitter to come to a different conclusion. But for me this goes into the realm of wishful thinking.

Holy had put on some lean mass, as most do between their late 20's and mid 30's, but this didn't make him into a new specimen. He was mainly older, slower and more war torn and hadn't showed any amazing durability against Bowe and Moorer in recent years.

The objective bet is on Holy.

 

Yeah I'm a big fan of Holmes but I don't remember him winning a round either, about the best thing Holmes did in the fight was at the beginning of the 4th round. Where Holmes danced for a brief spell and landed a few jabs which for a moment looked reminiscent of a young Holmes, that soon ended though when later in the round Tyson drilled him with a right hand that knocked him down like a sack of potatoes.

 

I know Tyson went to prison but Holyfield was waaaaaay more washed than Tyson at the time it’s so obvious on film.

Everything should suggest that Tyson and even Lewis were better heavyweights than the blown up cruiserweight Evander Holyfield. But Tyson’s 2 hapless showings where he looked massively undersized against the ‘undersized’ fighter and Lewis’ 2 mediocre showings where washed Holyfield did enough to earn a draw (no it wasn’t a robbery) and arguably win, give 0 logical reason to him being much better than Holyfield.

And despite what people would have you believe, Tyson looked good against Bruno 2. Tyson’s 2 poor showings against a washed Holyfield to the point where he was having to quit don’t give me much confidence he’d be a big favourite against a younger much busier version of Holyfield.

I don’t think Lewis was better than Tyson that being said. We can play all the games we like but the fact is by the time Lewis was getting Holyfield and Tyson in the ring his trainer was laughing at how flat out bad Tyson looked and remarking how slow Holyfield was. And Lewis still almost lost to Holyfield ffs. Prime for prime Lewis Tyson it looks a lot like their first round in 2002 for 12 rounds. Lewis wins a few but gasses and Tyson gets a close but clear decision over 12, or if Lewis is ‘unfocused’ or at high altitude then Tyson in 2.



I think Tyson gets underrated on these forums but he’s done it to himself losing to Douglas and missing out on his own version of Ali-Frazier if you will. What’s his best win will always be a question even if it’s overplayed. If Tyson had beaten Douglas and then Holyfield in 1990 I think he’d be rated unequivocally as the best H2H and lock for top 3 HWs ever. But he didn’t live the professional life. Only can blame himself.

 

Holyfield did enough to earn a draw and it wasn't a robbery ? Come on......

Like i know you dislike Lewis which is fine Lewis is not everyone's cup of tea. But your showing your biased/hate for Lewis with the statement above which is different. And you know damn well Holyfield did not even come close to earning a draw in their 1st meeting.

 

Helenius beats prime Tyson and Douglas.

 

The fight was tame. I had it 7-5 for Lewis. And Lewis didn’t do much at all in rounds 1 and 6. Neither did Holyfield. I mean all it takes is for one of the judges to see something different at ring side and gives Holyfield a dubious round. Maybe Holyfield’s bouncy footwork looked nice or Lewis was clowning and then thay give the round to Holyfield for a silly reason like that. It’s not as if Lewis lost anyway. He drew. It was hardly some great championship masterclass.

 

I would say 5 rounds to Holyfield is very generous, I can't see how you can have Holyfield winning 5 rounds in the 1st fight. Regardless Holyfield did not do enough to earn a draw even if you give him the benefit of the doubt. For me Holyfield could not do any better than 8-4 in the first fight, and I would say the vast majority would see it that way aswell.


As for judges ? The most inexperienced judge Eugenia Williams somehow scored the 5th round for Holyfield, in which he got pummeled along the ropes over a minute and was outlanded 43 punches to 11, nothing to do with taunting or bouncy footwork just total incompetence from Eugenia Williams.

 

Nice one John.

 

Holyfield and Lewis proved they had what it takes to keep on winning after losses.
Tyson didn't show he had that ability.
But I will say, Tyson against the younger versions of Lewis and Holyfield, he's gonna stand a chance of beating em.
But overall for met, the two were better fighters than Tyson.

 

Well I dunno Fergy Tyson was on a nice little run after the loss to Douglas, he seemed to rebound and had two impressive 1st round stoppages over Tillman, Stewart, and then proved his mettle vs a murderous puncher in Ruddock.

Unfortunately for the fans prison denied us Tyson vs Holyfield in 1991 and possibly Bowe vs Tyson in 1992.

 

On my last scoring, the best I could make it for Holy was 3 rds with Lewis taking the rest. I think my card was either 10-2 or 9-2-1. The draw was a joke.

Holy did better in the rematch, but still a clear enough win for Lewis.