Tyson vs Holyfield - who of them is better fighter?

Good day. Happy New Year to everyone I wish!
All of us remember many disputes (all over the world) on Tyson and Lewis's theme who from them is greater or more legendary, and many other things. At present it is represented to me interesting to discuss "face to face" Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, to discuss them not from the point of view of statistics and figures, titles, belts, comparison of opposition or records. To me interestingly what they were as boxers, are how much good or bad, than are good and than are not so good.
As to Mike in its best years, I saw in him very good aggressive “shorty” counterpuncher. With fine technics and skills, feeling of a distance and a rhythm in actions, fine feeling of the opponent. His technics and skills were almost ideally combined with his natural parametres. Then in due course Mike became easier, also more predicted, but on any very long remained terrible force.
Holyfield in cruiserweight and times of heavyweight differed a little. Despite the universality and brilliant skills being cruiser he didn’t hesitate to impose to contenders rate and without ceremony could break them physically, many times taking fight inside. Passing in heavyweight to him it was necessary to calm the passion though, but all the same there was an aspiration to combat "a bone in a bone" a little if it is most favourably for him.
They in a ring met twice, and both times the victory remained beyond Evander. The fact is also that in the second fight they have a little held back each other. I saw their career of professional boxers from beginning to end, and I dare to assert that in their fight in any years, taking into account their styles, merits and demerits, Evander it would appear more strongly and beat Mike any time, any place, anywhere.
What opinions are?

Easy! Evander beat Tyson twice easy! He fought better opposition than Tyson. In fact If Evander had retired after the second fight with Lennox I think he would be considered one of the greatest HW's of all time behind only the likes of Ali and Louis, but his unwillingness to call it a day is making a mockery of a once great champion.

I think Tyson was the greatest talent ever in the heavyweight division, in his prime I think he would have beaten anyone, so imo Tyson was the better fighter but unfortunitly his life outside the ring affected his performance inside the ring...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

I think Tyson was the greatest talent ever in the heavyweight division, in his prime I think he would have beaten anyone, so imo Tyson was the better fighter but unfortunitly his life outside the ring affected his performance inside the ring...

---

I take it when you say prime you mean 86-89? Normal boxers usually peak between 26-30 years old though.

Greatest ever talent? What world class opposition did he take on to give you that idea? Amir Khan looked terrific against a bunch of bums and then the same thing happened to him! He got found out against someone that shouldn't have been able to lace his gloves.

Damn Bonecrusher nearly sparked him in his so called prime and probably would if he had decided to fight before the last minute of the fight.

in fairness Khan looked talented but even in the amatures he was rocked by light punchers, Tyson had a great chin to go with his talent, Ive never seen a heavyweight that I thought would beat a prime Tyson, just my opinion though...

Over all I have to go with Evander....He was more versitile, Tyson was purly come forward, Evander proved to not crumble under adversity, Tyson did it several times...though Physically it is pretty difficult to tell...

Tyson was really only stopped when
1. He did not train for a fight...EG- Douglas....
2. Past his best years when all he did was look for the KO
3. When he just quit caring..EG- McBride bout

In his younger years he took some hellafied shots and kept going...Remember the Ruddock fight.

Speed--Tyson
Power--Tyson

Heart--Holyfield
Ability to adapt--Holyfield


Ahhh---Just too hard to decide...When thinking about them prime for prime

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Easy! Evander beat Tyson twice easy! He fought better opposition than Tyson. In fact If Evander had retired after the second fight with Lennox I think he would be considered one of the greatest HW's of all time behind only the likes of Ali and Louis, but his unwillingness to call it a day is making a mockery of a once great champion.

---

I agree sadly enough

Have to go with Holyfield.Tysons handspeed was superb,tight package and was a formidable force coming forward...when things were going his way.They were set to meet in 1990,then Douglas layed Mike out.Again in 1991,then a busted rib (courtesy of sparring Oliver McCall I believe?) took Mike out of that one.Holyfield would have boxed more back then but I still think he would have beaten Mike.Had more intangibles.....mentally sound,footwork,stamina,combination punching,etc.He had his number,I think Tyson realized that in the rematch and resorted to going rabid dog on Holyfield.

Holyfield.

He beat Tyson twice.

Tyson after losing Cus D' Amato had doom written all over him. With that factor alone, it is hands down Holyfield, however much irritated I am to say so.

On his own, Tyson was only good to win against mediocre to mid-level opposition! He, as a man was manipulated to perform at less than optimum. He plodded on like a prized puppet, even looked thorazined at times in fights, especially against Holyfield 2. With DK pulling the strings, it was more like shows from "Barnum and Bailey" in the early years, than actual boxing matches!

Tyson had skills in the ring, and power that was hard to equal, that at some point, the "house" continuously lost tons of "moolah" in the betting game! Regardless of what odds are at stake, there is only one theme in betting. And there too, was only one result. Remember the Buster Douglas fight, after this one, Tyson was flushed!

Holyfield beat Tyson twice? Tyson was, when they finally met, reduced to a mere shadow of what should have been the real "Iron Mike".

This isn't even debatable of course Evander Holyfield, he was a 2 weight division champion beating names like.

Dwight Muhammad Qawi x2
Carlos De Leon
Mike Tyson x2
Michael Moorer
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
James Tillis
Ray Mercer
Riddick Bowe
Alex Stewart x2
Bert Cooper
Buster Douglas
Michael Dokes
Pinklon Thomas
Henry Tillman
Ossie Ocasio

Mike Tyson Best Wins.

Tony Tucker
Tyrell Biggs
James Tillis
Larry Holmes
Pinklon Thomas
Trevor Berbick
Michael Spinks
James Smith
Frank Bruno
Carl Williams
Tony Tubbs
Henry Tillman
Razor Ruddock x2
Francois Botha
Marvis Frazier

Thread over IMO.

Prime Tyson would have wiped Holyfield, if they fought him after Ruddock before he went to jail, I still think he would have won that one too.

prime vs prime, Tyson wins the fight. comparing overall careers, I guess you have to go with Holyfield.

Well i have to say it is Evander Holyfeild and he beat the better people and also beat Tyson him self fact is i always thought Holyfeild would win he had Tysons number people say Tyson was past it be Evander was older and had a heart condtion also was in one of the most brutal fights in heavyweight history with Bowie Evander was just to mental tough for Tyson i mean yea Tyson was looking great fighting against bums but he never beat a elite Evander also showed that he never crumbled under pressure either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adler

Good day. Happy New Year to everyone I wish!
All of us remember many disputes (all over the world) on Tyson and Lewis's theme who from them is greater or more legendary, and many other things. At present it is represented to me interesting to discuss "face to face" Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield, to discuss them not from the point of view of statistics and figures, titles, belts, comparison of opposition or records. To me interestingly what they were as boxers, are how much good or bad, than are good and than are not so good.
As to Mike in its best years, I saw in him very good aggressive “shorty” counterpuncher. With fine technics and skills, feeling of a distance and a rhythm in actions, fine feeling of the opponent. His technics and skills were almost ideally combined with his natural parametres. Then in due course Mike became easier, also more predicted, but on any very long remained terrible force.
Holyfield in cruiserweight and times of heavyweight differed a little. Despite the universality and brilliant skills being cruiser he didn’t hesitate to impose to contenders rate and without ceremony could break them physically, many times taking fight inside. Passing in heavyweight to him it was necessary to calm the passion though, but all the same there was an aspiration to combat "a bone in a bone" a little if it is most favourably for him.
They in a ring met twice, and both times the victory remained beyond Evander. The fact is also that in the second fight they have a little held back each other. I saw their career of professional boxers from beginning to end, and I dare to assert that in their fight in any years, taking into account their styles, merits and demerits, Evander it would appear more strongly and beat Mike any time, any place, anywhere.
What opinions are?

---

Welcome aboard Adler you've just signed up the best boxing site on the net bar none...

Hope you stick around and remember protect yourself at all times. ;)


As for your question it's def. one that can be disected in so many different ways.
Skill wise I'd have to go with Tyson, because I think he was more versatile where as Holy became more of a warrior and often got into wars leaving his skills sidelined.
Career wise I'd have to go with Holy, longevity alone does it add the quality of opposition and he leaves Tyson in the dust.

Overall? Shit... I'd side with Holy.

Id go with Holyfield too

I was of the beleif that a prime Tyson could beat anybody but Evander just has more dimensions to him . He can do it all .Id lean towards evander but its a tough call