Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I think Holyfeild had Tyson number and he actual won a lot of his big fights and was not crushing cans a lot of his career. I laugh when people say Tyson was not prime because neither was Holyfiled. I mean if i had to call the last prime version i say it was Bowie rematch he won after that Holyfeild had some really bad problems health wise after. Holyfeild was just more solid on his fundamentals then Tyson was so he pretty much outclassed him even though he was older and in worst way when it came to his health.
I don't think Holyfield had better fundamentals than Tyson.
Holyfield was more versatile. For example Tyson couldn't fight going backwards, Holy could.
Holyfield had many Great attributes, bur he had some shortcomings:
I think Holyfield fought off-balance a lot.
He didn't move his head enough; that's why he got hit so cleanly by so many fighters; he'd just stand there. His world-class chin, one of the best in Boxing, is what kept him in there many times.
He didn't have Heavyweight power, and part of that was all that nonsensical bouncing around excuse-for-footwork he'd do. When you bounce like that, your feet aren't planted, and you lose power.
He also hardly ever gets called for all the rule-breaking he did with his chronic head-butting and elbows.
Tyson, likewise had many Great attributes and some shortcomings, but he had excellent fundamentals for the style he utilized as a 5'11" guy consistently fighting 6'4" guys.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bradlee180
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I think Holyfeild had Tyson number and he actual won a lot of his big fights and was not crushing cans a lot of his career. I laugh when people say Tyson was not prime because neither was Holyfiled. I mean if i had to call the last prime version i say it was Bowie rematch he won after that Holyfeild had some really bad problems health wise after. Holyfeild was just more solid on his fundamentals then Tyson was so he pretty much outclassed him even though he was older and in worst way when it came to his health.
I don't think Holyfield had better fundamentals than Tyson.
Holyfield was more versatile. For example Tyson couldn't fight going backwards, Holy could.
Holyfield had many Great attributes, bur he had some shortcomings:
I think Holyfield fought off-balance a lot.
He didn't move his head enough; that's why he got hit so cleanly by so many fighters; he'd just stand there. His world-class chin, one of the best in Boxing, is what kept him in there many times.
He didn't have Heavyweight power, and part of that was all that nonsensical bouncing around excuse-for-footwork he'd do. When you bounce like that, your feet aren't planted, and you lose power.
He also hardly ever gets called for all the rule-breaking he did with his chronic head-butting and elbows.
Tyson, likewise had many Great attributes and some shortcomings, but he had excellent fundamentals for the style he utilized as a 5'11" guy consistently fighting 6'4" guys.
Tyson could be pushed back but he came at you from the sides and obliterated you.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Yep, that's the liability of squaring up: you can be pushed back, neutralizing your punching power because you don't have time to punch before getting pushed back.
The advantage is more torque and power on your hooks and uppercuts when you get inside...
Holyfeild was very masterful in how he took advantage of that.
It's not how Buster defeated Tyson at all.
I always think of Buster getting off first with long-range right-hand leads...
Very dangerous to throw right-hand leads, but it worked for Buster on Tyson, and it worked for Ali on Foreman...
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Mike would be dangerous in the exchanges but unless he landed something big early I think it would go the same way it did in 96.
Holyfield had Tysons number and once he had absorbed his initial assault he would start roughing him up and wearing him down.
Holyfield in 91 was a machine and could go non stop for 12 rounds, Mike would only be a threat to him for 5 or 6 rounds
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GAME
Mike would be dangerous in the exchanges but unless he landed something big early I think it would go the same way it did in 96.
Holyfield had Tysons number and once he had absorbed his initial assault he would start roughing him up and wearing him down.
Holyfield in 91 was a machine and could go non stop for 12 rounds, Mike would only be a threat to him for 5 or 6 rounds
Holyfield was a skinny heavyweight then, Tyson would have butchered his body. Later he put on the muscle to absorb the heavyweight shots.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Tell me one other fighter since Tyson that has defended the WBC, WBA and IBF title 6 times?
Do you realise how difficult it is to keep all the titles together and make that many defences? Its very difficult which is why Lewis and Holyfield could not match Mikes dominance.
Do not make out alphabet crap means anything.
At the time Tyson was THE MAN, there was no else coming close to making $10 Million plus a fight.
If you are the WBA, C or IBF do you keep taking your cut from Tyson defences, or do you strip him for not fighting Adilson Rodrigues and set up the money fight that is Rodrigues/Witherspoon for your vacant crown?
On top of this as Messrs Lee, Suliman and Mendoza found out; if you running a little short of dosh, Mr King was very willing to help his 'friends'...
Trust me, Kin... I mean Tyson had no problems keeping his gaudy belts together!
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Judging how Mike would have fared against Evander based on how their eventual fight went is as unfair as judging how Louis would have done against Marciano.
Mike had one the heavyweight title 10 years before and had an enforced break of 4 years thrown in. He just wasnt the same boxer.
So he is not allowed to ask the question ?
Of course he is fuck face...
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Typical response of a 14 year old kid.
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Judging how Mike would have fared against Evander based on how their eventual fight went is as unfair as judging how Louis would have done against Marciano.
Mike had one the heavyweight title 10 years before and had an enforced break of 4 years thrown in. He just wasnt the same boxer.
So he is not allowed to ask the question ?
Of course he is fuck face...
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Typical response of a 14 year old kid.
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Teenage Troll Club it is seeming like. OK, we need to start labeling them as they are coming onto this forum in large numbers lately: I want to name Jerry Rice, and jahmez .
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Judging how Mike would have fared against Evander based on how their eventual fight went is as unfair as judging how Louis would have done against Marciano.
Mike had one the heavyweight title 10 years before and had an enforced break of 4 years thrown in. He just wasnt the same boxer.
So he is not allowed to ask the question ?
Of course he is fuck face...
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Typical response of a 14 year old kid.
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Typcal response of someone with no response;)
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
I think the Holyfeild that beat Bowie in the rematch was about as good as he got. After that he started to have hart problems and got hep b but i believe that version of Holyfeild can beat any Tyson there was. So i guess the Holyfeild of 1993 was his last time at his best i believe and then medical issues kicked in. Thing is though it doesn't really matter that much because Holyfeild already kicked his ass and fought better comp but for hell why not argue it because we have nothing better to do.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I think the Holyfeild that beat Bowie in the rematch was about as good as he got. After that he started to have hart problems and got hep b but i believe that version of Holyfeild can beat any Tyson there was. So i guess the Holyfeild of 1993 was his last time at his best i believe and then medical issues kicked in. Thing is though it doesn't really matter that much because Holyfeild already kicked his ass and fought better comp but for hell why not argue it because we have nothing better to do.
Those medical issues he had all happen to be notorious steroid use symptoms/side effects;)
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Well if that was the case i guess it kinda hinder him did it not. Having heart problems is not necessarily a good thing to have when you are a boxer. Not to mention that after the Bowie fight his tank as not what it used to be after words so i don't think it help him very much.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dark Lord Al
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
Judging how Mike would have fared against Evander based on how their eventual fight went is as unfair as judging how Louis would have done against Marciano.
Mike had one the heavyweight title 10 years before and had an enforced break of 4 years thrown in. He just wasnt the same boxer.
So he is not allowed to ask the question ?
Of course he is fuck face...
My reply was in response to those who had already replied. Its obvious most people will base a hypothetical match between these two at an ealier time on the matches they did have when Mike was far removed from the fighter he was.
Like I said. Would Louis beat Marciano? Would Ali beat Berbick? Would Foreman beat Morrison, Holyfield and Briggs?
Mike wasnt old but he didnt fight like he used to.
The Tyson that fought Holyfield in 96 would also have lost to the Rudduck that he beat.
Hed sat on his ass for 4 years he was never going to be the same fighter. Ali wasnt the same fighter who could dance out of trouble, he spent alot of time on the ropes and he was out a year less than Mike
Typical response of a 14 year old kid.
Looks like we were right guys he is just a teenage troll.
Typcal response of someone with no response;)
Tell mum and dad well done for that response, between the three of you that was pretty good.:LOLATYOU:
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Not getting any better at this are you.....
Iv pointed out indisputable facts and you have no argument.
Re: Tyson VS Holyfield in 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
Well if that was the case i guess it kinda hinder him did it not. Having heart problems is not necessarily a good thing to have when you are a boxer. Not to mention that after the Bowie fight his tank as not what it used to be after words so i don't think it help him very much.
That isnt just a spelling mistake. Thats the second time you have done that.
Do you think he lost to David Bowie?;D
