Had Holyfield vs Tyson Happened in 1991?

[PetethePrince]

Who do you have winning? And why...

[Mendoza]

It would have been a great night for boxing. Back then, we knew Holyfield had heart, but we were not sure about his ability to take a punch. That question was answered later on and the films show Holyfield had a heck of a chin!

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.

[McGrain]

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.

Me too.

[My2Sense]

Holyfield. Better fighter, and had the style to beat Tyson.

[Mr Butt]

It would have been a great night for boxing. Back then, we knew Holyfield had heart, but we were not sure about his ability to take a punch. That question was answered later on and the films show Holyfield had a heck of a chin!

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.

could not agree more:good

[Hydraulix]

If Buster Douglas took this version of Tyson apart, then so could Holyfield.

[teeto]

It would have been a great night for boxing. Back then, we knew Holyfield had heart, but we were not sure about his ability to take a punch. That question was answered later on and the films show Holyfield had a heck of a chin!

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.
And there's the rationale.

(i'm quite into that saying now, i think i'll make it my own, but i won't use it out of place)

[Rourke]

I watched the second Razor Ruddock fight for the first time in my life yesterday and Tyson actually somewhat stopped fighting during the middle rounds, he was tired as hell, didn't look too good so I don't really know. Holyfield wasn't as big as he was back then though, so would that make somewhat a difference, as in the fights they had he was able to smother Tyson and overpower him.

[OBCboxer]

It would have been a great night for boxing. Back then, we knew Holyfield had heart, but we were not sure about his ability to take a punch. That question was answered later on and the films show Holyfield had a heck of a chin!

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.

I would agree with this too. The only thing that doesn't make it convincing is what Bert Cooper did to Holyfield.

[duranimal]

I'd bought & paid 4 my ticket & trip a couple ov day's before the fight was called off due 2 Tyson's injury:verysad

Back then i was absolutly 100%+ convinced that Holyfield was the man 2 dethrone Tyson by boxing his head off, remember back then Tyson was still viewed as someone that was'nt human & not ov this world, Ambrose Mendy (Nigel Benn's manager) & i nearly came 2 blows over it, everyone though i was nuts & the popular concensus was that Holyfield was just a blown up cruiserweight & would be dispatched in double quick time 3/4max.

Obviously with the benifit ov hindsight i'am now ov the opinion that Tyson would have KO'd Evander, we all now know that if Tyson was the baddest man on the planet then Evander was the hardest/toughest & iron hearted, but it's the Bert Cooper fight that has now convinced me that Evander would have got himself hammered, he's 2 brave 4 his own good, he'll never ever turn down a challenge.

He never had the physical structure or power back in 91 that he had in 96 & i just don't see him resisting the challange 2 engage in a tear up with a 91 Tyson, as we now know all about Holyfield's stubbiness & his desire 2 shut up his critics & leave know doubt about his legitimacy as Undisputed Heavyweight Champ.

I was also at the Douglas/Holyfield fight at the Mirage & thats the Evander (The Boxer) i expected 2 see against Tyson in 91, but after the Bert Cooper fight it's more than obvious IMO Evander would have been flattended if he'd stood toe 2 toe, my optimum reason being that the Evander ov 96 was a transformed physical monster & not the slim scultured athelete ov the Douglas fight, there is know comparison between the 2 Holyfields ov 91/96.

There has allways been the strong rumours that Holyfield was on the "Gear" even as far back as the Cooper fight & when i also went 2 both the 96/97 Tyson fights i was absolutly stunned when i saw Holyfield physique, absolute monster, he could have been in the WWE, & it was evident with his power in Nov96 the 97 rematch when he just pushed Tyson around with ease, for fuck sake:scaredas: have you seen the fuckin "TRAP'S" on the cunt:scaredas:

Just compare the 2 Holyfields over 5 years, absolute transformation, look, here was a 28/1 dog for the 96 Tyson fight, he was doomed, i'll never forget being there, fuck me it's still gets me hairs on me neck up.

But thats my seeing it folks, Evander gets done in 91 due 2 his bravery & lack ov physical power, when he tries 2 impose his will he gets KO'd :smoke & i would have lost a fuckin pile ov $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ big time:verysad

[ironchamp]

Tyson would have beaten him.

There are so many variables that go into match making that the 1996 fight is seemingly irrelevant.

Tyson always respected Holyfield as a fighter and IMO knew that Evander would have presented a challenge to him and therefore would not have underestimated him in 1991.

Evander was still by and large a greenhorn at HW. He didnt have the growing experience of the Bowe fights that transformed him into a the great HW that he eventually became. In addition, Tyson didnt have the career changing hiatus at that time period and would therefore be a sharper fighter, slightly quicker, better stamina and more fluid than he was in 1996.

Evander's heart and courage was always there and even as Champion he was never given his due until he lost to Bowe in 1992. Up until Tyson went to prison, Tyson was still considered the best HW on the planet despite the Douglas loss and despite the fact that Evander won the undisputed HW title. Evander would have fought like he had something to prove and it would have resulted in gallant effort, but a Tyson win nonetheless.

I was young when this fight was being brought up but I couldnt help but think then that Evander was just holding the titles until Tyson got his chance to take them right back. So in 1991 Unequivocally Tyson.

In 2009, despite the benefit of hindsight I still pick Mike. Tyson wasn't ready for the taking, Evander would have played into his hands and IMHO Tyson would have stopped him via TKO.

[Robbi]

Holyfield.

[Flea Man]

Evander wasn't as big then.....he was also liable to trade more.

Tyson by stoppage IMO.

[Rattler]

It would end up falling into the same lines as Holy - Qawi I. Tyson has his moments, when Holy gets a little flat or doesn't feel like throwing; but mostly the fight would be Holy circling the ring, getting in and out and holding when he has to. Tyson didn't have the workrate to keep up with Holy and loses a bunch of rounds simply by less activity than Holy.

[fists of fury]

remember back then Tyson was still viewed as someone that was'nt human & not ov this world, Ambrose Mendy (Nigel Benn's manager) & i nearly came 2 blows over it, everyone though i was nuts & the popular concensus was that Holyfield was just a blown up cruiserweight & would be dispatched in double quick time 3/4max.



That's not accurate.

For instance, in the Dec. 1991 edition of World Boxing, there is an article entitled "Can Evander Holyfield overwhelm Mike Tyson?"

Kevin Rooney is quoted as saying "Mike is no ball of fire anymore..."

The article continues...

"The old style - which started to disappear during a 5 round kayo over Frank Bruno in 1989...has given way to a more simplistic stand-up stance."
"The post-Rooney Tyson has discarded his powerful jab...no longer does he bob and weave inside an opponent's guard..."

Boxing '92 (Jan. 1992) article - 'The Holyfield - Tyson showdown'

"When was the last time Tyson was actually Tyson?...but to find the real Tyson, one has to go all the way back to his 1988 blowout of Michael Spinks."
"It would be safe to assume that Tyson hit his peak between October 1987 and June 1988..."

"Michael, as strong as he is, he's short. The wiggle-waggle just isn't there anymore. The jab isn't there anymore. Maybe the will, the desire isn't there." - Angelo Dundee, speaking in the article entitled "Will the real Mike Tyson please stand up?" (October 1991 edition of Boxing Illustrated. )

..."But even in beating Ruddock, Tyson demonstrated that he is not the same fighter who waded through the heavyweight division on his way to the title. Tyson now moves his head about as much as someone claiming whiplash in front of a jury and throws jabs with about the same frequency." (Same article)

"Following Tyson's victory by unanimous decision after 12 rounds, many of boxing's sages said they were convinced that Tyson was on the other side of his career." (Same article)

I could pull out a dozen more examples, but I think the point's been made. Tyson was NOT seen as "someone that wasn't human and not ov this world."

People thinking that weren't paying attention.

[lefthook31]

Tyson had a few tough fights and was in good shape under Giachetti. He was ready for Holyfield. Holyfield of 91 was smaller, traded more and it would have been a tough night fo Evander. Look what a motivated Bowe was able to get Holy to do. Tyson would have drug him into a slugfest and it would have been over by mid rounds. Tyson would have knocked him out.
Even when they fought Evander really didnt do too much damage to Tyson until Tyson basically fell apart and ran out of gas.
In the second fight, Tyson really started to tag Evander cleanly as well, and looked like he was outspeeding Evander.
You also have to factor in that Holyfield wouldnt have fought the same type of style, and the headbutts would not have been a factor which they clearly were in the two fights.

[duranimal]

That's not accurate.

For instance, in the Dec. 1991 edition of World Boxing, there is an article entitled "Can Evander Holyfield overwhelm Mike Tyson?"

Kevin Rooney is quoted as saying "Mike is no ball of fire anymore..."

The article continues...

"The old style - which started to disappear during a 5 round kayo over Frank Bruno in 1989...has given way to a more simplistic stand-up stance."
"The post-Rooney Tyson has discarded his powerful jab...no longer does he bob and weave inside an opponent's guard..."

Boxing '92 (Jan. 1992) article - 'The Holyfield - Tyson showdown'

"When was the last time Tyson was actually Tyson?...but to find the real Tyson, one has to go all the way back to his 1988 blowout of Michael Spinks."
"It would be safe to assume that Tyson hit his peak between October 1987 and June 1988..."

"Michael, as strong as he is, he's short. The wiggle-waggle just isn't there anymore. The jab isn't there anymore. Maybe the will, the desire isn't there." - Angelo Dundee, speaking in the article entitled "Will the real Mike Tyson please stand up?" (October 1991 edition of Boxing Illustrated. )

..."But even in beating Ruddock, Tyson demonstrated that he is not the same fighter who waded through the heavyweight division on his way to the title. Tyson now moves his head about as much as someone claiming whiplash in front of a jury and throws jabs with about the same frequency." (Same article)

"Following Tyson's victory by unanimous decision after 12 rounds, many of boxing's sages said they were convinced that Tyson was on the other side of his career." (Same article)

I could pull out a dozen more examples, but I think the point's been made. Tyson was NOT seen as "someone that wasn't human and not ov this world."

People thinking that weren't paying attention.

What shite is this:patsch

Are you some sort of Lunatic:scaredas: This is pure nitpicking at it's finest, you should get out more, it's quite pathetic, what the fuck is all the above ink got 2 do with what our opinions of the outcome ov this fight are.

i'am using the term not human/Not of this world 2 describe Tyson in a global boxing generalisation view i.e joe paying public & most of the boxing medie in general, even till this day that would be the popular consensus, jeezus you've only got 2 look at the furore that the 96 fight caused when it was announced & with Don King promising 2 pay back all the PPv subscibers 1/2 their $$$ if it did'nt go 3 rounds.

Jeezus, you sad sad man/boy

[duranimal]

It would end up falling into the same lines as Holy - Qawi I. Tyson has his moments, when Holy gets a little flat or doesn't feel like throwing; but mostly the fight would be Holy circling the ring, getting in and out and holding when he has to. Tyson didn't have the workrate to keep up with Holy and loses a bunch of rounds simply by less activity than Holy.

That was my arguement way back in 90/91 exactly, i'am right with you on that score but at the time i was viewed as a herotic, i'am not so sure about Evander being a greenhorn at heavyweight though? he did fight his way up for his shot at the title, but obviously my opinion in hindsite after the cooper fight just makes me think he may have got TKO/KO'd,

[fists of fury]

i'am using the term not human/Not of this world 2 describe Tyson in a global boxing generalisation view i.e joe paying public & most of the boxing medie in general,

Are you upset? :lol:

Don't make stupid statements next time. And that wasn't the general perception of the boxing media either, as I've clearly shown.

[duranimal]

Are you upset? :lol:

Don't make stupid statements next time. And that wasn't the general perception of the boxing media either, as I've clearly shown.

I concede & celebrate the fact that you are the undisputed world champion of self insemination:goodLong may you reign:smoke

[fists of fury]

I'll take it as a compliment.

[young griffo]

Tyson had a few tough fights and was in good shape under Giachetti. He was ready for Holyfield. Holyfield of 91 was smaller, traded more and it would have been a tough night fo Evander. Look what a motivated Bowe was able to get Holy to do. Tyson would have drug him into a slugfest and it would have been over by mid rounds. Tyson would have knocked him out.
Even when they fought Evander really didnt do too much damage to Tyson until Tyson basically fell apart and ran out of gas.
In the second fight, Tyson really started to tag Evander cleanly as well, and looked like he was outspeeding Evander.
You also have to factor in that Holyfield wouldnt have fought the same type of style, and the headbutts would not have been a factor which they clearly were in the two fights.
Holyfield didn't do much damage to Tyson???

He outboxed,outstrengthed,floored,badly staggered and subsequently stopped Tyson in an as emphatic an upset victory as you're ever likely to see.

As for the rematch,Evander established control even earlier aside from the third when Tyson landed a couple of shots (which Holyfield withstood with ease) and then he bit him.

The headbutts were only a factor because Tyson needed a convenient excuse for being dominated by a tougher,stronger guy.Roughhousing never bothered Tyson as long as he was the one administering it.

If the fight happened in 91,I see a supremely motivated Holyfield prevailing in a slugfest in the late rounds after withstanding an early shellacking.

[lefthook31]

Holyfield didn't do much damage to Tyson???

He outboxed,outstrengthed,floored,badly staggered and subsequently stopped Tyson in an as emphatic an upset victory as you're ever likely to see.

As for the rematch,Evander established control even earlier aside from the third when Tyson landed a couple of shots (which Holyfield withstood with ease) and then he bit him.

The headbutts were only a factor because Tyson needed a convenient excuse for being dominated by a tougher,stronger guy.Roughhousing never bothered Tyson as long as he was the one administering it.

If the fight happened in 91,I see a supremely motivated Holyfield prevailing in a slugfest in the late rounds after withstanding an early shellacking.
I dont think he started doing the damage until the later rounds. The early rounds just consisted of a lot of grapling and holding, and Holyfield knew Tyson wasnt in condition to fight a long fight. Tyson basically was sucking air by mid fight. Until then Holyfield wasnt hurting Tyson too badly, and I wouldnt call the knockdown "flooring" Tyson.

[DamonD]

If you ask me who I would have picked in 1991, I would have said Tyson.

If you ask me in 2009 who would have won in 1991, I will say Holyfield.
Heh, well put.

My only concern with '91 Holyfield is that he might choose to go toe-to-toe whereas the '96 version knew when it was right to clinch up and neutralise instead. On the other hand, he may be able to get Tyson to go into his shell that way instead, but it would be a bit more of a risk. He'd have to be smart and not do like he did against Cooper.

Still probably have my money on Holyfield though. Tyson was his focus throughout his career, the whole reason he moved up to heavyweight in the first place.

[jaffay]

I pick Holyfield in this fight.

There is to much focus of what Evander was in 96' (stronger, heavier) and much to less focus on what Holy was in 91'. Holyfield was fast, dynamic, aggresive, pressuring, fresh, well conditioned and durable. With all that skills I see him dancing over Tyson early and ripping him apart in the later rounds. Even if Tyson stunned Holyfield by some occasion, I see Real Deal taking the punishment and railing back. Evander took punches from Foreman and Cooper so I think that its very possible that he could survive Tyson's.

[My2Sense]

I dont think he started doing the damage until the later rounds.

He rocked Tyson as early as the 2nd round.


Until then Holyfield wasnt hurting Tyson too badly, and I wouldnt call the knockdown "flooring" Tyson.

Why not?

[lefthook31]

He rocked Tyson as early as the 2nd round.




Why not?
Not in the first fight. In the second fight, he nailed Tyson pretty good in the second round. Tyson came back strong to shake Holy as well.

The knockdown in the first fight was a balance shot more than anything in the first round.

[bigG]

i think some people are putting to much emphasis on the cooper fight...bert was a poor mans, hell, destitute mans, tyson..but when he fought holyfield, am i not right in thinkin that evander had been training to fight another, wholly different fighter...(was it damiani??)..also, the fight was in holy's hometown and its more than possible that the pressure of an 'easy' homecoming fight against a substitute oponent who he was meant to beat, handiy, might just have been too much for the over emotional holyfield who , as i recall, seemed uncharacteristically 'charged' that night..

no way, no how does tyson ko ANY version of holyfield. i really think any version of holyfield has the kryptonite to smother and quench tysons early fire and ultimately dismantle him in an exciting, some times bck and forth, tussle....holy would fight tyson in a much more circumspect fashion than he fought the sacrificial lamb cooper, who, god love him, was little more than a trial horse back then....his unheralded perfromance against the real deal got him in some great fights nd gave him his deserved 15minutes of fame...

[lefthook31]

Let me also add that Tyson didnt have a corner to go back to in Jay Bright. No fighter in the history of the sport has ever been able to fight through a tough fight on their own. There's a reason the best talents hire the best most expensive trainers. When you have someone giving you instructions that doesnt know boxing, what good is it? Tyson simply felt he would be able to walk through Holyfield in the first fight. Theres a reason Tyson hired Giachetti again. This was the same mistake he made after the Spinks fight. Watch the first fight listen to the commentary in the corner its pretty sad.
Watch the second fight, even though brief, there was a solid boxing personality in the corner. The instructions were calm and professional and it was paying off until the ear bite.
Im not making excuses for Tyson, but its clear the importance of the right trainer. Tyson was never as good as he was under Rooney after they parted ways, but he was certainly better in 91 with Giachetti than he was with Bright.
As far as Holyfield, Im not so sure in 91 Holyfield would even have fought this type of fight. If it wasnt for Tommy Brooks who later became Tysons cornerman, I dont think Holyfield would have ever fought the style he did in that fight, and under Duva and Benton would have been his usual boxer puncher, brawler.

[lefthook31]

i think some people are putting to much emphasis on the cooper fight...bert was a poor mans, hell, destitute mans, tyson..but when he fought holyfield, am i not right in thinkin that evander had been training to fight another, wholly different fighter...(was it damiani??)..also, the fight was in holy's hometown and its more than possible that the pressure of an 'easy' homecoming fight against a substitute oponent who he was meant to beat, handiy, might just have been too much for the over emotional holyfield who , as i recall, seemed uncharacteristically 'charged' that night..

no way, no how does tyson ko ANY version of holyfield. i really think any version of holyfield has the kryptonite to smother and quench tysons early fire and ultimately dismantle him in an exciting, some times bck and forth, tussle....holy would fight tyson in a much more circumspect fashion than he fought the sacrificial lamb cooper, who, god love him, was little more than a trial horse back then....his unheralded perfromance against the real deal got him in some great fights nd gave him his deserved 15minutes of fame...
I agree to some extent. Many fighters have made big mistakes in homecoming fights, just ask Tommy Morrison.:yep
It wasnt just Cooper though Holyfield never boxed brawlers or fighter who engaged him. From Dokes to Cooper, Foreman and Bowe, Holy would brawl. Your talking about a fighter in Tyson who hit so much harder and faster than the rest of the fighters, and I dont think Holyfield would even realize what he was up against until it was too late. Again, Im really suprised most people dont see the difference between Tyson in 91 as compared to the post prison version who was not a fit fighter able to go 12 hard rounds. The Ruddock fights were tough grueling phyiscial fights. Tyson of 96 would have never been able to fight a fight like that.

[bigG]

i think tyson was a phenom pre incarceration...a veritable force of nature..there has never been a heavyweight with that aura of malevolence and the speed, power and ferocity to back it up. and, the tyson haters always say he never had the bollocks when he really needed them....but watch the ruddock fights for proof of his courage pre prison..i just cannot see even the intimidating 91 tyson overpowering holyfield...evander had one of the all time great chins and was, simply, a more disciplined fighter. he never had an easy day at the office, even back then, and he knew how to battle back from adversity...and although im a huge tyson fan, i cant see his head keeping him in the game with the relentless pace even this younger, slimmer real deal would innevitbly set after he acclimatized to mikes undoubted power...a different type of pressure than that visited upon him by the bigger, harder hitting (than holyfield) but slower and dare i say lazier ruddock....

mike shakes holy, visibly, several times early...but evander weathers this storm, regroups hits the gas and outworks, outhussles and ultimately outfights a dazed and confused tyson somewher around 8 rounds....

[fists of fury]

The Cooper fight is not relevant here, imo.

Evander went in with Bert with something approaching disdain...certainly he didn't respect Cooper and felt comfortable staying in the pocket and trading with Cooper.
You could just see that Evander didn't want to fight a long fight...he was looking to take Cooper out of there.
I'm sure that feeling was reinforced when Coop went down early from a bodyshot. Evander nearly, nearly paid for that bit of arrogance, but against Tyson he'd have a whole lot more respect and would approach the fight in a totally different way.

Holyfield in '91 wasn't the biggest guy, but his greatest assets were his chin, his willingness to fire back when hurt and his ability to throw punches in bunches. All three would serve him well against a Tyson who though still very formidable, was a guy forsaking some of the qualities that made him so devastating before.

He (Tyson) was definitely more predictable than before and although he punched with the same power as always, he didn't set up his punches properly, preferring to throw big shots in the general direction of his foe rather than work an opening.
Instead of dissecting his opponents, he tried to bludgeon them into submission with pure force...and rarely does that work out, especially against such a talented and tough opponent such as Evander.

Then there is the mental side of things, which sorry to say as a fan of Mike's, is a bit of a mismatch, at least at this point in their careers.
Holyfield could and did overcome adversity, Tyson generally faltered, and I feel at some point in the fight he'd falter.
He was directionless...he didn't pay attention to his corner and relied almost exclusively on his outright physical assets getting the job done. Holyfield had a great corner behind him and would walk into the ring with a sound battle plan.

I can't say with 100% certainty that Holyfield would win, but he'd have a damn good chance.

[fists of fury]

Tyson was his focus throughout his career, the whole reason he moved up to heavyweight in the first place.

And this is a very important point. Holyfield studied Tyson the way a law student studies a text book. And he'd been doing so for years. He knew Tyson's style, and what he would generally do in a fight, very well.

[kmcc505]

See my avatar to what I think would happen then, too.

[Rico Spadafora]

Mike Tyson would have NEVER beat Evander Holyfield. Holyfield mentally screwed Tyson by not backing down from him and becoming the bully in their 2 fights.

I went to High School with Holyfield's 2 nephews and Evander often came and spoke to us. He told us in 1993 that if he were to ever fight Mike Tyson he would knock him out. And that is EXACTLY what he did. He told us he would win the fight at the staredown that he would be the bully and not Tyson in that fight.

I am ashamed to admit that I did not believe him because I still believed in the myth of Mike Tyson but I remember sitting in front of the TV in 1996 and watching Holyfield bully Tyson all night long. I don't think any version of Tyson ever beats Holyfield who would not back down from Tyson. Mentally Holyfield was just superior.

:good

[ripcity]

People sometimes place too much vaule into their real fights. You can tell me all you want about Holyfield's courage and hart, but standing front of Tyson in 1991 would only end in one result a ko win for Tyson.

[Silver]

all that bully mentality crap is overrated. holyfield had the style to expose technically flawed tyson in 96. had they fought in 1991, if holyfield utilizing the same startegy, he beats him again too because tyson was still head hunting and poor defesively in 91'. the only version of tyson thats beats holyfield is 88' with rooney.

[PbP Bacon]

Close match. But my vote is for Holy.

Sure, Tyson can't be discounted entirely, but I think that Holy has the upper hand here.

My impression is that people on Tyson's side are making a wrong assumption: an overeager Holy playing right into Tyson's hands and naively falling for a slugfest, precisely the kind of fight best suited for a headhunter.

I don’t think that would have been Holy’s behaviour in 1991. As previous posters have mentioned Holyfield was well aware of how Tyson fought, and Holy was too smart of a boxer to fall for it.

On the other hand, post-Rooney Tyson was –I dare to say- already going downhill. No more hunger. No more planning. No more peek-a-boo. No more jab setting. I can’t see that version of Tyson defeating Holy :think

[Silver]

Close match. But my vote is for Holy.

Sure, Tyson can't be discounted entirely, but I think that Holy has the upper hand here.

My impression is that people on Tyson's side are making a wrong assumption: an overeager Holy playing right into Tyson's hands and naively falling for a slugfest, precisely the kind of fight best suited for a headhunter.

I don’t think that would have been Holy’s behaviour in 1991. As previous posters have mentioned Holyfield was well aware of how Tyson fought, and Holy was too smart of a boxer to fall for it.

On the other hand, post-Rooney Tyson was –I dare to say- already going downhill. No more hunger. No more planning. No more peek-a-boo. No more jab setting. I can’t see that version of Tyson defeating Holy :think
holyfield had too much respect for tyson. cooper and bowe hurt holyfield badly in large part because he was too eager too exhcange. tyson could do even more damamge to holyfield then those two. and tyson was still technically unsound. which is why the buster douglas disaster happened and why he struggled with razor ruddock in two fights.

[Mirko]

I am both a fan of Tyson and Holyfield. I think 91 Tyson was still somehow in his prime (although in a decline ...) and Holyfield was not the fighter he became later on after the Bowe fights. He was not that strong and would go slug it out which would lead to a war with then still hungry for redemption Tyson. I see it as a late round Tyson KO or Tyson by a unanimous decision. still it would be one of the greatest fights of the decade no doubt and Holyfield could pull a victory also. i'd give it 60-40 for Tyson on this one.