Why do people try to downplay Holyfield's first win against Tyson?

I don't get it. Douglas beat Tyson, Holyfield best Douglas. obviously this means Holyfield beats Tyson, overrated win, **** the triangle theory

 

Who down plays it? Holyfield always gets credit for the win, the win was huge at the time it happened and he became HUGE after the win, only thing fans complained about was the headbutts but Tyson was dirty too so all was fair, Tyson lost four years in prison and couldnt train, he lost his timing and never got it back, it was like watching two different fighters

 

You might possibly expect this thread to go on for a lot of pages, and include hundreds of posts, but NONE will be as pertinent, as those words you wrote above.:good

 

I can either search the net for the latest " jokes " or read the likes of you making pathetic excuses for Tyson getting fukked by Buster Douglas. Either way, it is a coin toss. :rofl:rofl

 

I'll do my best to help you out here ( but I understand it will be hard for you to grasp )

D.O.B.'s

Holyfield.

1962-10-19

Tyson.

1966-06-30

If that is a little ( lot ) too difficult for you to comprehend, you might like to try this.



At the time they FIRST fought.

Holyfield.

32 3 0

Tyson.

45 1 0

Now, I am sure to the untrained eye ( such as yours ) that makes for perfect agenda based reading.

However would you like to try to break it down to the number of rounds fought?

( Again, I hold no hope in you having the slightest understanding, of the relevance of such data )

If the above is too complicated for you to possibly understand, you could try revisiting EXACTLY why the bookies had Tyson as a 6 - 1 favourite.

 

Probably the same.. Strangely enough I think Evander was further declined in 1996 than was Tyson, but due to devotion to training and strong mental resolve he actually preserved himself better to where he had more left than Tyson by 2002 if that makes sense or if it's even possible. He did after all stick around until as late as 2008 to give Valuev a good run while Tyson got beaten by mcbride in 2005.. But who knows ?

 

It doesn't matter in the slightest, personally I think they were pretty much as past their prime as the other if it will make you feel better. Holyfield was just too good.

 

In 89, at the staredown, Bruno looked right through Tyson.

In 96, Bruno crossed himself more than the pope.

The 89 Bruno came to smash the myth of Tyson.

The Bruno of 96 walked to the ring like lifelong fan.

Two totally different Brunos. Bruno actually tried to win in 89, in 96 he did nothing but clinch.

 

Right on cue.

 

Bruno did say that he'd rather fight Lewis every day of the week rather than Tyson once.

 

Mcall also said Douglas was a better fighter than Lewis

 

The Douglas who lost to Holyfield was 15lbs heavier than when he beat Mike, and that was in the SAME year!

 

:huh

So did Holyfield. In fact, he actually won his first title a few months before Tyson did.

No, the consensus was that he was at his best as a CW (where he is generally considered TBE) and that he had lost much of his power in the move up to HW.

 

Welcome to Headbutt City
Population: Evander Holyfield

 

Yeah, 'cos Tyson left town.
It weren't big enough for the two of 'em.


:deal