Who should be rated higher on the all time Greatest Heavies Holyfeild or Tyson

Yea i think one o my eariest post was why Tyson was so great if you rember it went about that long.

CC woodzo I agree Tyson just edges it for the reasons you stated. Holyfield prime which ever version could not beat the Tyson during his first reign. Tyson made that era look weak because he obliterated the majority of the top ten opponents.

Holyfield was just not consistant enough champion loosing to Moorer for instance.

It's close, but Holy pips it for the simple fact he beat Tyson twice, Tyson may not have been at his so called 'prime' but Holy was older and overcome some pretty serious illnesses.

So called all time great lists are bollocks IMO, though they are fun to discuss. There will never be agreement on them since people will always shift the criteria to suit there favourite fighters. Tyson fans will always use the criteria that compare some mythical prime for prime contests to elevate their guy, while Marciano fans will use the fact that he defeated everyone single guy he faced, and Louis fans will judge criteria on championship reign.

My opinion on Tyson is that he was very physically gifted with speed and strength for his size, he was also very well taiught in an effective technique. He may very well have beaten many of the champs of the past (IMO Marciano, Dempsey, Louis) if you were to pluck those guys out of those times and just stick them in the ring with him at his marauding best, but such a situation would be so heavily stacked in Tyson's favour it's just stupid, like comparing Jesse Owens to Asafa Powell in the same way.

The question you have to ask is what would Tyson have done in the ring if he had been bought up in the same way those guys had in their times? he'd have been about the same size as them, and would never have had his mentor with him telling him EXACTLY which punch to throw when and why. Though he may have been physically gifted, he never had the mental strength to compete with those guys, Tyson very rarely won a close fight.

IMO Tyson is just about top 10 of all time great champions, though his reign was brief he did manage to clean out the division, which not too many fighters have done in the history of the sport. He is below Holy and Lewis of the 80s 90s fighters, but I agree with Lyle, though prime Bowe may have had the style to beat a peak Tyson, his peak was even brifer and he achieved less.

Holyfield. Durability alone and the ability to still be able to take a punch says alot. I doubt even todays Holyfield would be knocked out by McBride or Williams.

Holyfield also beat Tyson twice, has fought more quality, and has won the world title 4 times.

After reading all the posts i guess Holyfeild is better heavyweight maybe top 10.