Why is Mike Tyson ranked above Holyfield?

Nothing shocks me anymore.

 

Holyfield just fought on far too long and jaded his own legacy. If he retired after Moorer 2 he would be considered Top 3 ATG

 

No. He still came off worse in the series against Bowe. It's hard to claim top 3 when someone got the better of you in your prime (the first two). The Moorer loss also wasn't great. In short, he never had a sustained period of domination at HW, even in his prime. His wins against Tyson isn't enough to make up for that if we're talking top 3.

I don't even factor in what he did after Moorer 2 when I rank him and I don't have him top 3.

 

He was @djanders favourite boxer

 

I don't think so, I think he was just trying to avoid difficult rivals. Mercer, Klitschko, Byrd, Ruiz... he gave the belts to the last two, not wanting to fight them. Lewis was terribly boring and guaranteed business losses, which is why Rock Newman and later Don King wanted nothing to do with him. Lewis was good but only good enough to fight close fights with old Mercere and old Holyfield, he fought Tyson when he was already a wreck, stuffed with zoloft and losing to Danny Williams. Lewis has great PR and people are falling for it. I keep wondering where they see his big wins... and if you compare Douglas to Rahman, Douglas Tokyo was much better than RPA Rahman. Lewis defeated McCall in the 2nd round, who was losing to Douglas. You've been fooled by propaganda, my friend, don't let it confuse you, just watch Lewis' fights and review his career.

 

I don't think any boxing fan with a braincell honestly counts Ali's losses against Holmes, Berbick, in which he had early stages of parkinson's and wasn't in good health. Maybe some of the close decisions vs Norton, Shavers, Young, after the Thriller in Manilla hurt his legacy a tad. But he's still rated by most boxing fans as the number 1 or 2 Heavyweight of all time.

The difference is with Ali and Holyfield is that Ali had a period of dominance between 64-67 in his prime Holyfield never did. Holyfield had an average first reign in which he struggled immensely vs two fighters in their 40s, and a fringe contender in Cooper almost knocked him out. Ali also had a winning record against all the best boxers of his era where as Holyfield had a very hit and miss record.

He went 1-1 with Moorer and lost the trilogy to Bowe i don't really see how that helps your argument TBH. All that proves is that Holyfield was never the best Heavyweight of his time. Bowe was the best Heavyweight of early to mid 90s and Lewis was the best Heavyweight in the late 90s. Tyson was the best Heavyweight in the late 80s which is another credential he has over Holyfield which is a much superior title reign and dominance.

Foreman was in his 40s and Holmes was certainly not better than the Holmes who fought Tyson how can you make that claim ? Tyson would've finished the Holmes who fought Holyfield in quicker time than their actual bout in 88. Holmes adjusted his style in his 40s fighting off the ropes more because he didn't have his legs anymore i don't see that makes him a better fighter though Holmes was 38 vs Tyson compared to 42 vs Holyfield.

When Mercer fought Holyfield he was coming off abysmal performances going 1-1 with journeyman Jesse Ferguson who Tyson destroyed in his prime. And having a draw vs an even worse journeyman in Marion Wilson. The win over Mercer at that time was not considered that much of a win, it's only with hindsight of Mercer running Lewis close that it looks better.

80's had alot of talent and Tyson dominated that era, Holyfield may of fought better opposition overall but the only thing that matters is winning not just who you fought if you're rating a fighter. And the fact is Holyfield had very mediocre short title reigns and never proved he was the best Heavyweight at anytime in his era.

Like i've said before i can see arguments for Holyfield or Tyson being rated above eachother, but you seem to think Tyson being rated above Holyfield is impossible and i'm not really understanding that logic TBH.

 

Do you know about defense? Bowe didn't have it. Watch him fight Herbie Hide and imagine it's Tyson tagging him.

 

Bowe didn't use his height or reach and liked to slug it out on the inside, he had no defence and he and his team purposely avoided any notable big hitters from that era. Holyfield almost knocked out Bowe with one single left hook, Hide had him all over the place on numerous occasions. Even a faded Biggs made Bowe's legs go to jelly in the 3rd round of their fight.

If Bowe tries to exchange punches with Tyson on the inside with his leaky defence he's getting knocked out.

 

Yes he was. Evander was a real warrior in the ring!

 

Yes, I don't see how you can be top 3 ATG if you can't say you were ever the best even in your own era. If he shared an era with Louis or Ali, maybe, but otherwise it's a hard sell.

 

Tyson had relatively no inside game which is why Holyfield was able to piece him up, Bowe had arguably the best inside game of the 90's

 

Holyfield bulked up on PEDs and become much physically stronger in the mid 90s not to mention becoming a smarter fighter.

Holyfield neutralized Tyson with his physical strength and tying up Tyson on the inside. Bowe wasn't really that clever or cute on the inside and was very hittable.

 

Holyfield could never have come close to beating Tyson if he wasn't on PEDs, this and the intentional and constant head-butting he did throughout his career makes him less of a fighter than Tyson, who never took PEDs.