Evander Holyfield
 

just watched his fight since i have a stream tv account. last time i seen a fight of his, he looked hell of slow and was having horrible slurred speech. Well, during todays fight, the guy was fairly sharp and beat the living shit out of Lou Savarse. Now they are interviewing him and he all of a sudden has NO slurred speech whatsoever. I dunno what to think.

He was a bad dude in his day.

Yes, he was. I loved his fights. I just dont know how he can all of a sudden have no slurred speech. I have never seen it. He was talking all nice and clear. He has a little homeboy accent haha, but he was talking clear.

Speech therapy?

Or brain surgery?

IMO, there really hasn't been a a really good heavyweight since Larry Holmes, who is historically underrated, IMO.

Hehe, well, i dont agree with that. Holyfield was just awesome, the dude has incredible heart.

The slurred speech thing still boggles me. I dont think speech therapy or brain surgery has anything to do with it. He was half scrambled eggs already lol

I dislike Mike Tyson significantly but dude dominated everybody for a long time. You really think the competition was so poor that he doesn't get mention as "really good"?

Who the hell did he beat?

And he lost to Buster Douglas at a time when he should have been in his prime.

I think Tyson was really good, but he seriously lost focus and started partying to much i think. Also his trainer who was like a dad to him died and he was never the same.

He beat everybody. He didn't just beat them, he pummeled them. It was ridiculous. If you want to argue that he's not one of the all-time great heavyweights I'll condede the discussion. But he was at LEAST "really good".

My point is that he beat a bunch of bums.

No one that would have ever gotten a title shot in any any era before the Tyson era.

Tyson was better than anyone in his time by far.

But that's like saying that a bad NFL team is better than a junior high team.

The fact that NFL team could pummel those junior high teams doesn't make them really good.

Sorry to disagree but he beat NO ONE. He only fought ONE fighter under the age of 30 as champion and lost. He avoided highly regarded and ranked young fighters such as Razor Ruddock, Michael Dokes, Bert Cooper and yes, Evander Holyfield. He was supposed to fight Holyfield twice before his incarceration but backed out both times.

He was a paper champion.

Larry Holmes, OTOH, defended the heavyweight title 19 times, the most since Joe Louis. He did fight everyone - from Ken Norton to Ernie Shavers to Ossie Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Michael Dokes, Pinklon Thomas and on and on and on. At one point, he was fighting one a month! That hadn't been done since the 1940's!

Mike Tyson wouldn't have lasted against the likes of Holmes, Shavers, Weaver and especially, Ken Norton. Hell, Tyson couldn't beat Buster Douglas.

He fought and beat Razor Ruddick 2 times. Awesome fights too.

Again, I'm not a fan. I acknowledge that his fight history is spotty and that he fought bums.

But he destroyed all comers. He was vicious.

I don't think he's the best of all time. I'm really not big enough of a boxing authority to comment on that. I just think saying he was not "really good" is unfair because he was at least "really good".

I think he was "good" but certainly not very good and definitely not great. He didn't take on all comers because his fights were all handpicked. As I stated, he ducked the young heavyweights at the time (including Lennox Lewis, Oliver McCall, Ray Mercer and more) to fight a bunch of over-the-hill, washed up tomato cans. He was never truly tested in the ring until the Buster Douglas fight and we all know how that ended.

Tyson would have a better place in history if he would have fought and beaten all the young heavyweights of the time instead of 37 year old club that included Tony Tucker, James "Bonehugger" Smith, Trevor Berbick and so on.