Holyfield-Tyson 1991 - Who wins and why?

[streetsaresafer]

November 8th, 1991 - Holyfield/Tyson

Greetings, first time poster here but frequent lurker, so I thought I'd start with a healthy debate about who would have won?

Did we miss out on an all time classic fight that would have really settled the debate as to who was the greater heavyweight? What if Iron Mike Tyson did not get that rib injury three weeks before the fight and the fight actually happened? Who wins and why? And a side question - was Tyson in his prime in 1991?

Here's my analysis -

Evander Holyfield analysis
Remember that Holyfield was unquestionably in the prime of his career, he would have been 29 years old at the time of the fight, coming off what I consider his most underrated performance with his victory against Foreman. Holyfield was undefeated, having already taken out Michael Dokes and Buster Douglas in impressive fashion. He was fighting at what I consider his ideal weight - 208 lbs. Plus, besides the money at heavyweight, the main reason Holy jumped to heavyweight was he wanted a shot at Tyson. He thought he could beat Tyson and we learned obviously in 96' that he could pull off such a feat.

Also, Holyfield was unquestionably better in 1991 than he was in 1996. His workrate was better (look at how many punches he was throwing per round against guys like Dokes and Foreman), he used his jab more, used his footwork more, and was a lighter fighter - 208 lbs typically as opposed to the 218 lbs he was for the 96' fight.

Now some have said that the weakness of the early 90s Holyfield was that he was more prone to be drawn into a war (Bert Cooper, first Bowe fight) and was not the wily experienced veteran he was in 1996. I do not agree with this because Holyfield himself said after the Bert Cooper fight that the way he fought Cooper was not the way he would have fought Tyson. Holy was certainly smart enough to realize that the one guy he might not want to try to outslug was Tyson so I actually would have expected that you'd see a similar gameplan to his fight in 1996. I think the main difference is that he would have clinched less and used his feet more.

As a side note, many ask - when was Holyfield's prime at heavyweight? I consider Holyfield's prime at heavyweight to be from 1989-1993 (Dokes fight through Bowe II). Age wise these years were ideal - he was 26 at the time of the Dokes fight and was 31 at the time of the 2nd Bowe fight. He was very good/great in nearly every fight and had only the single loss to Bowe in a classic. After Bowe II, he became much more inconsistent, looking iffy in Moorer I, Bowe III, and Czyz, while looking formidable against Mercer and Tyson. Also he was carrying more weight (typically around 215 lbs as opposed to 208 lbs, and did not have as good a workrate, and had been through that many more tough fights. Thus Holyfield was unquestionably in his prime in 1991, while he was not in his prime in 1996, though Holy was still formidable in 96'. Tyson I consider still formidable in 96', but certainly not prime.

Mike Tyson analysis -
Was he still prime in 1991? Was the 1991 Tyson different from the 1996 Tyson?
The Tyson of 1991 was in my mind superior to the Tyson of 96'. For one, Tyson was a full five years younger (25 as opposed to 30) and many have said that fighters like Tyson tend to peak sooner than a big fighter like say Lennox Lewis. Also Tyson was coming off two impressive hard hitting wins against Razor Ruddock, who by most accounts was the most dangerous puncher at the time not named Tyson. In terms of boxing, Tyson still attacked the body in 1991 (watch the Rudduck fights) where as I saw very little in the way of a body attack from a post prison Tyson. He still had all of his speed and reflexes, and still threw good combinations, though he was no doubt more of a headhunter than he was from 1986-88.

Now let's consider the motivation factor. In 1996, Tyson came into the fight at 222 lbs, at least 4 lbs heavier than Tyson's best weight (216-218 lbs) and was overconfident as well, seeing as though most thought Holy was shot at the time (see Bowe III and Czyz). Now in 1991, Tyson had all the motivation in the world to get in top shape. For one, he would have been fighting to win back the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world, so the stage could not be bigger. In addition, Tyson would have had a healthy respect for Holyfield as an opponent knowing him to be tough from their Olympic days in 84.' So it is reasonable to expect that Tyson would have taken the fight very seriously and come in to the fight in top shape.

The question then becomes, while no one would question Holyfield was in his prime in 1991, was Tyson still in his prime? This is a tougher question than I initially thought. Nearly everyone seems to agree that Tyson's prime was 1986-1988, culminating with his absolute peak performance against Michael Spinks in 1988. Unfortunately we know that soon after Kevin Rooney was gone, Don King was in control, and Tyson seemed to lose interest in Cus D'Amato's peek a boo defensive style and seemed content to just be a knockout artist.

This is actually why I think the Tyson of November 1991 was the best Tyson possible post Rooney. Think about it for a second, if Holyfield and Tyson fight in 89 or 90 while Tyson is unbeaten, I actually think that would have been worse than having the fight in 91 because Tyson was ripe for a fall in 89-90. He was way overconfident, had a horrible corner (see the Douglas fight), and was dealing with the divorce with Robin Givens. So while an undefeated Tyson against an undefeated Holyfield sounds better on paper, I actually think the fight in 1991 is a better fight because it was after Douglas. The Douglas fight showed Tyson that he was not invincible. Now some will say, Tyson was never the same after Douglas (Tyson himself said his career ended in 1990), but I disagree, if he had any psychological doubts about his ability as a fighter, it would have shown up in the Ruddock fights. If he had lost confidence in himself, Rudduck would have knocked him out. So to me, Tyson still had it in 1991 and in fact was better than he was post Rooney up to Douglas (89-90) because he had to get hungry again to win his title back.

My point is this - while I will concede Tyson was not in his prime in 1991 - no Kevin Rooney, not enough interest in using the bob and weave peek-a-boo defensive scheme Cus taught him - the Tyson of 1991 was the best Tyson post prime, better than 89-90, and better than 96. Physically he still had all the tools, still had that devastating combination of lethal speed and power. He still punched to the body and threw combinations. Again I think where he had slipped was defensively, he did not bob and weave nearly as much, but there was nothing preventing him from tightening up his defense.

My prediction - Holyfield wins via 12th round TKO
All time classic fight, with Tyson winning most of the early rounds and Holyfield winning most of the later rounds before finally stopping him in the 12th. Honestly the difference to me is Holy's chin. Holy has an all time great chin, thus he would likely survive the first 5 rounds from Tyson because of that. Also remember that Tyson has said that Holyfield was the best counter puncher he's seen, so that has to be factored in as well.
The fight would be somewhat similar to the 1996 fight but much closer and action packed - biggest reason being Tyson was better in 1991. While their fight in 1996 was a very good fight it was not an all time classic because there were too many clinches and Tyson was not effective enough to make it a nailbiter. In 1991, I think there would have been significantly less clinches because Holy would have used his feet more, and he would not need to get some of the bits of rest he was able to get each time he clinched Tyson. While he would still clinch Tyson some to frustrate him and not let him get off on the inside, overall the number of clinches would have been significantly lower.

I think Tyson certainly could have won in 1991 but I still would pick Holyfield because he was a better boxer, had the chin to withstand the Tyson onslaught in the early rounds, and would have been stronger late to pull out the victory.

One last thing, Al Bernstein came to my undergraduate college a few years back and I asked him who he thought would have won Tyson/Holyfield in 1991. Al Bernstein said he thought Holyfield would still win, but that it would be closer. He said he thought Holyfield had Tyson's number.

As a first time poster, and frequent lurker, I am curious as to how people think this fight would have turned out?

[Russell]

Welcome to the boards, street.

I'd give it to Holyfield.

Tyson's power hadn't degraded by the time they fought... just his technique. But it was by and large all still there. Holy took all of it over the course of two fights.

He's got the willpower. The combinations. He's not afraid or intimidated.

Tyson's not prime and that's what it's going to take to beat Holyfield here, in my opinion.

[newrp01]

Holyfield. On mental toughness alone.

[Muchmoore]

The Tyson of the Ruddock fights would stand a good shot. A big difference between the Tyson of 91 and 96 was the 91 Tyson was lighter and thus could fight 12 rounds. Tyson was still effective late in t he fight against Ruddock while the older Tyson's stamina was clearly worse.

Holyfield could be drawn into a war and didn't have all of the experience of the 96 one. But, even with taking this into account, he was faster and lighter on his feet so that helps him.

I'll post my pick later, it's close.

[Marnoff]

I would go Tyson.

[JC2006]

That is a hell of a first post...

I'd have to say Holyfield.

[mr. magoo]

You made some interesting points about the fact that an 89/90 Tyson might have been more vulnerable than a 1991 version. I happen to agree. Following the Douglas loss, Team Tyson brought in former Holmes trainer, Rich Giachetti. I don't know how competent Giachetti was or if he was even the right match for Tyson for that matter, but he certainly did no worse than Aron Snowel and the rest of that bunch. In his matches against alex Stewart and Razor Ruddock, we saw shades of the more aggressive Tyson that crippled the division between 1985-88, and not the one who fought Frank Bruno and James Douglas. Also keep in mind, that Evander was taken the distance in a somewhat close fight with a 43 year old Foreman, and floored later that year by a journeyman fringe contender named Bert Cooper, who fought a similar style to Tyson, but was not even remotely in the same league. Although I think Tyson in 91 would have been a better match for Holyfield than an 89 Tyson, I still think the ideal matchup would have been the 86/87 version, but I know that wasn't the focus of your post.

In any case, I would always pick Evander. Too much heart, too smart, too tough. That's why we call him " The Real Deal "

[bigG]

holyfield.....a disciplined fighter beats an undiscilplined fighter...period.....holyfield wouldnt be fazed by mikes rep, had a cast iron chin at that point, and i reckon 9 times out of 10, he got mikeys number......these guys would always put on a great show, but holyfield, as the last poster said, had too much heart, too much pride, strength AND skill for ANY version of tyson........

[streetsaresafer]

Some great responses here.

Reason why I did not ask about 88 Tyson v. Holyfield is the fight could not have happened. Rooney was gone after the Spinx fight in June of 88. Holyfield had just moved up to heavyweight that year and his first heavyweight fight was against Tillis. So point being, the fight could not have been put together before at least 89 - after the Dokes win. By then, Rooney was gone and any hope of a perfect mythical matchup prime v. prime fight was out the window.

However, if one could matchup an 88 Tyson against a 90-91 Holyfield I do think it becomes a pick-em fight.

Where as a fight in 91 I favor Holyfield to win 70-30 odds wise.

88 Tyson v. 90-91 Holy is a legitimate 50-50 odds pick em fight. I can see Tyson winning a decision on pts due to the improved defense and having Rooney in the corner. Tyson could stop Holyfield but I still feel it would be very difficult given Holy's chin and determination. Remember, only Bowe knocked Holy out, and up through 96, Holyfield had only been knocked down by Bert Cooper and Bowe in their first fight. The man could take a punch as well as any heavyweight I've seen. So if Tyson wins, I think it is by decision.

Having said that, I still pick Holyfield in a prime v. prime matchup because of his superior boxing skills. Tyson said Holyfield was the best counter puncher he'd seen. Tyson had maybe the fastest hands in the history of the heavyweight division, but Holyfield's hands were almost as fast, remember he was a Cruiser for a while. If you watch their fight in 96, Holy oftentimes gets off his shots before Tyson, so handspeed wise they were fairly close.

Also, Tyson's significant power advantage is negated somewhat by Holyfield's chin and his determination not to lose.

Tyson was truly great from 86-88 and I think he is often underrated as I think that Tyson would have a legitimate shot to beat any ATG heavy, not saying he'd be favored, but he'd have a live shot against anyone because he was so explosive. Having said that, there are certain fighters who style wise I think would always trouble him.

For instance, I think a prime Tyson loses to prime Ali (see Tyson's difficulties against Pinkon Thomas and James Tillis for evidence of fighters that could move and jab effectively), prime Louis (too good), prime Foreman (made to order - see Frazier), prime Liston (close one here but Liston's 84 inch reach with that jab is the difference), and yes prime Holyfield (granite chin, superior boxer, better late in fights, almost as fast, greater heart and determination).

I think prime Tyson takes prime Lewis out because I've got to believe that Tyson would get to that chin at some point in the first 5 rounds and put Lewis out. If Lewis survived the first 5 rounds, then he'd have a legit shot to pull it out, but I don't see him being able to fend off a prime Tyson.

Prime Tyson beats Prime Bowe because Bowe was too easy to hit. Bowe would no doubt score some monster shots of his own. If Bowe were smart he'd try to use his jab and box his way to victory but I don't see it. That fight would have been amazing, probably would have been like Hagler-Hearns at heavyweight, can't imagine it would go more than 5 or 6 rounds.

So I still see Holyfield taking a prime matchup against an 88 Tyson but I have full respect for those who see a Tyson win. These two guys are my two favorite heavies and the reason I got into boxing, so that's why I am so interested to see how people see a fight like this turning out.

I'm happy we as boxing fans got to see Tyson and Holyfield fight twice in 96-97 but can't help but wish we could have gotten the matchup earlier when they were both in their primes or close. While they were both formidable in 96, both were past their best and I think most would agree.

Thus Tyson Holyfield I and II definitely are relevant and count in the discussion about who the best fighters were, but they are not as significant fights as Bowe-Holy I and II - two fights when both fighters were absolutely in their prime.

Where as I find Lewis-Tyson to be a fight that counts for very little - I give Lewis credit for his dominating performance but he was fighting a Tyson that was so faded that his victory means little in the grand scheme of things. Tyson was 36 or 37 at the time of the Lewis fight. The last time he was close to a top notch fighter was 96 (though certainly not prime). Also, Tyson weighed 234 pounds for the Lewis fight, a ridiculous weight considering ideally he'd be between 216-218 lbs.

For the record, I do consider Lewis an ATG heavy but he's between 11-15 for me. Very impressed by his destruction of Rudduck in 92, and his domination of Rahman in their rematch fight. Also, his 2 wins against Holyfield are significant in my opinion. I do give him credit. I had him winning the first Holy fight 9-3, and while the 2nd fight was much more competitive, I still had Lewis winning 8-4 in the 2nd fight. In many ways, his performance against Holyfield in fight I is his best performance because of the quality of opposition. Lewis put on a clinic that night with his jab, throwing at least 40 of them a round, he certainly was robbed in that first fight. Lewis himself has said that Holyfield was the best fighter he ever faced.

Having said that - while Lewis/Holy I and II certainly count much more than Lewis/Tyson - I don't consider those fights as significant as Tyson/Holy I and II - and nowhere near as significant as Bowe/Holy I and II (prime v. prime). Holyfield was still formidable in 99 no doubt, but he was at least 6 years removed from his prime (Bowe II). He did not have near the workrate he did in his prime which is why I think a prime Lewis/Holyfield matchup ultimately goes to Holy by decision. I think Holyfield would outwork Lewis, who as great a fighter as he was, had a tendency to take his time too much in fights, and thus I see Holyfield winning a close fight on pts due to workrate. Certainly I'd agree that Lewis/Holy prime v. prime is a pick-em fight, but again I like Holy in the matchup still.

Sidenote - in real terms, the closest we could have gotten to a prime Lewis/Holy clash would have been 1994 or 1995. Probably 1995 if you could change history and have Holy beating Moorer in their first fight to retain the titles and also no heart problems. Then you'd have to wait until Emanuel Steward got a hold of Lewis after the McCall fight, and thus the fight would have been ideal in early to mid 1995. Holy's not prime, but damn near close at this point. Lewis is almost prime as now he's got Steward to polish his jab and defense. So 95 would probably have been the best time for their clash.

Thanks for the responses

[fists of fury]

Basically, the big difference between 80's Tyson and 90's Tyson is mentality.

90's Tyson tried to be too much of a tough guy. He tried too hard to be the all-conquering hero, and how hard he was trying was directly dependant to how insecure he was feeling at the time.
Look at his attitude in the months before he fought Lewis. It was as if Tyson was trying to be a comic book villian. He was totally over the top, and acted like a complete nutcase. I believe that, instead of trying to intimidate Lewis, he was trying to install a sense of belief in himself.

Tyson I believe, was well-versed in comic book super hero lore and once took a line straight from Superman 2 when he said to Ruddock "Why do you mock me when you know I will kill you for it?" It was verbatim from a scene in Superman 2.
Also, in the press conference announcing the Holyfield fight in '91 Tyson wore a fedora and a suit which made him look almost exactly like Mr Fixit from the comics. Who is Mr. Fixit? Grey Hulk.
The resemblance was uncanny. Even his poses looked similar. 90's Tyson also loved those cheesy old kung-fu movies where the old grandmaster wouls end up beating everyone up.
I'll swear to this until I drop, there was an element of geekishess about Tyson. He fantasised about being as strong as the heroes (or villians) that he had seen in the movies or in comics. He saw strength in them, and wanted to be like them. It's almost as if at times he was role-playing.
Tyson was always searching for a role model, one who showed strength of character. Growing up, he adopted some of Cus' and Jim Jacobs' mannerisms. This of course, could just be a natural by-product of hanging around them so often, or it could be that (once again) Tyson was mimicing people whose strength he admired.

What does all this have to do with Tyson-Holyfield in 1991? Everything.
Buster forever shattered the myth that was Iron Mike. From that point on, Tyson was never quite the same mentally. He confidence plummeted.
It wasn't noticeable fighting the Henry Tillman's and Alex Stewarts of this world beause they didn't present a threat.
Holyfield did however, and that's why I believe Tyson mimiced the Grey Hulk character for a while. He needed a hero to believe in, and since Grey Hulk could beat anyone up, hell, he was just the type of no-nonsense character Mike needed.

I don't think Tyson was entirely confident fighting Holyfield in '91. Confident to a point yes, but by no means super confident. Holyfield had shown he was not infallible by that stage, but he had also shown he could be a heck of a fighter.
In '91 Holyfield was not the wise old veteran he was in '96, but he had youth and an abundance of energy on his side. Tyson retained most of his physical gifts, but his style had chnaged a bit by then and he was more hittable. More telling, his confidence and cockiness had waned a lot from his days of being Iron Mike.
In a battle of wills there would only ever be one victor, and it wouldn't be Tyson. I don't think the fight would be all that dissimilar to the one in '96, but for the fact that Tyson would be more competitive, because like I said, physically he had more than he did in '96.
I like Holy by decision or late round TKO.

PS - welcome to our little corner of the world.

[Dostoevsky]

If Holyfield struggled and couldn't finish the likes of an old Holmes,old Foreman and Bert-fucking-Cooper I don't see how he could deal with a focused Tyson, even if it was a diminished version.
The 91 Tyson was still far superior to his 96 self.

Mike takes this quite easily imo....

[Muchmoore]

I would have to pick Holyfield if my life depended on it.

[JohnThomas1]

Holyfield's got Tyson's number. Too durable, too tough, too tenacious and just plain too much balls.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Commander Vander TK011...just like it was anyway.:good

[mr. magoo]

Holyfield's got Tyson's number. Too durable, too tough, too tenacious and just plain too much balls.

I see you're sporting your favourite fight poster of the bout that you so dread never happened. :rasta

[My dinner with Conteh]

QFT

Holyfield is overrated compared to Tyson.



I rate Tyson higher, but head-to-head Holy has his number. I always felt that and felt fucking great when he beat him. :happy

[bigG]

[QUOTE=streetsaresafer]Some great responses here.









im one of those who think that evander just had tysons number and would have won 9 times out of ten absolulte prime for prime.....prime lewis vs prime tyson is trickier.....lennox was only ko'd when he treated his opponents lightly, and i just cant see him ever makin that mistake with tyson.....prime for prime it would be a great fight, with lewis maybe edging a close decision...god how i hate sayin that......

...yet strangely, i posted a prime bowe vs prime tyson thread as one of my first contributions to this forum....i think bowe, prome, woulda had mikeys no too.....he would have in no way been intimdated by mike and i actually think his tendency to brawl serves him well in this matchup...imagine mikey eating those big uppercuts in close and being manhandled by big daddy.....i could actually see bowe wining by ko here....tho wouldnt be surprised to see it end the other way..tyson fought in ferociuos bursts at spped but conversley, didnt like fighting at a pace.....and PRIME bowe, all ten minutes of him...could box and brawl at a pace for the full 12 rounds.....tyson gets no repite in this fight, no moments off....prime bowe, as an offensive fighter anyhow, was pretty awesome.......strangely, or obviously, i have lewis, holy and tyson above bowe in my h/w list, but think bowe coulda taken tyson out...

[ripcity]

I would go with Tyson even though he was even than on the decline and Holyfield was prehaps on the top of his game. I think Hoiyfield's "hart" would do him in. Tyson could still hit and Holyfield would do less thn he should to avoid Tyson's punches. All so Tyson's agresiveness wouuld make enough of an impression on the judges to give him close rounds.

[ironchamp]

I'm leaning towards Mike because I dont believe he had Tyson's number rather I believe that Evander aged better than Mike and was able to make adjustments to compensate for his physical shortcomings with regards to a loss of speed and stamina.

In 1991 Tyson could fight for 12 Rounds, he worked the body sporadically and he punched in combination (not like the 80s but certainly better than the post prison version). The consensus is that the fight would be a little bit closer. I'm going with Tyson via decision based on the fact that his aggression would win over the judges effectively giving him the marjority of the close rounds.

To be honest I had a much longer post but for some reason I've lost it all. But for the sake of it I'll just post this for now.

[streetsaresafer]

Doc Holliday, I'd be curious to know why you think Tyson was better in 86 than 88? The Tyson of 88 had two more years experience and still all of the technique and explosion that the 86 version had, but I'm curious why you pick that as the best Tyson? In any case I think the 86 and 88 Tyson's are nearly identical but it is nontheless an interesting question trying to pin down what year was he at his best.

[streetsaresafer]

I still think Holy would be smart enough not too be drawn into too much of a war. It is Mike Tyson after all.

Holy made a tactical mistake against Bowe by trying to out war him in their first fight because he thought Bowe would eventually burn out. He was wrong.

But Holy was smart enough to see that Tyson had just gone 12 hard rounds with Rudduck - so I think the smart money is he'd be careful not too war with Tyson too much.

[Muchmoore]

Doc Holliday, I'd be curious to know why you think Tyson was better in 86 than 88? The Tyson of 88 had two more years experience and still all of the technique and explosion that the 86 version had, but I'm curious why you pick that as the best Tyson? In any case I think the 86 and 88 Tyson's are nearly identical but it is nontheless an interesting question trying to pin down what year was he at his best.

The 88 Tyson was when he lost Rooney. He started to show signs of being human and was stunned against Bruno.

[JohnThomas1]

I see you're sporting your favourite fight poster of the bout that you so dread never happened. :rasta

After Jack's effort i just had to wear it a few weeks. I think "longed for" would be a better term tho

:D

[JohnThomas1]

he had 96 tyson's number. 96 tyson was about 12% the fighter 86 tyson was. hell, even 96 tyson had a few moments and won a couple of rounds.

What a crock.

[NickHudson]

I think it would be fair to say that both men were past prime, but that Tysons style (dependent on explosive speed, reflexes and upperbody movemnent) can less stand the ageing process than Holyfield's more classic boxing style.

It is also true that Holyfield felt he had Tysons number and would be confident of victory, but this was also true the other way round. Tyson would also be confident.

In short I believe in Holyfield's mental toughness, but I feel that his physical gifts fall someway short of his mindset. The first Bowe fight encapsulates Holyfield for me. Against a true HW with ATG status, who is prime and motivated, I think Holy would often be a very brave loser, but a loser all the same.

Unlike Tyson, Holy at his best was not the best HW on the planet.

Tyson by KO or decision.

[NickHudson]

It is important to examine personal career trajectory when doing these comparisons. Age is important but does not tell the whole story.

Holyfield was still motivated and on a mission in 96, while Tyson had gone off the rails.

[My dinner with Conteh]

It is important to examine personal career trajectory when doing these comparisons. Age is important but does not tell the whole story.

Holyfield was still motivated and on a mission in 96, while Tyson had gone off the rails.



He looked good enough in the second Bruno fight. In fact, he looked better against Bruno that time out than in 1989. You see, he looked fine against a big soft lemon. Therein lies the difference.

[My dinner with Conteh]

he had 96 tyson's number. 96 tyson was about 12% the fighter 86 tyson was. hell, even 96 tyson had a few moments and won a couple of rounds.



96 Holyfield was basically having a heart attack a few months before. Tyson certainly looked far better in his previous two or three contests than Holyfield did. But then again, he always did when no one hit him back. :yep

[streetsaresafer]

Close vote so far

Yeah perception wise the 91 fight would have been different but still Holyfield would not have gotten too much respect before the fight.
In 96 people were worried about Tyson permanently damaging Holy's health.
In 91 - I think Ring Magazine was predicting a 1st round KO for Mike. Holyfield was considered a good fighter but not many appreciated him until he lost to Bowe in their first fight.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I think Ring predicted an 8th Round TKO for Tyson if I remember correctly (and I usually do). However, its sister publication KO asked 11 'experts' (writers and fighters) for their views and Holy had the edge: 5-3 in rating their strenghts and weaknessess. Then 3 more were asked of the outcome and all went for Holy. Eddie Futch felt that Tyson was 'made' for Holy style-wise by the way.

[salsanchezfan]

Holyfield, of course.


What exactly about Tyson was so much better in 1991 as opposed to 1996? His power? No. Speed? Eh. When exactly did he show any ability to fight back against an opponent that steadily put pressure on him? The answer is never.

Before one pulls the Ruddock rematch out as evidence he could go hard for twelve rounds, look at that fight again. Tyson was rocked a few times, and survived only because Ruddock seemed content to throw one huge "huppercut" at a time, spread out about one every so often. Tyson would take the punch, get rocked, back off, collect himself, and go at it again. Holyfield would not allow him the luxury of the time off between shots, even if they weren't as powerful. Hence, Tyson cannot recover.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Yep, Ruddock totally forgot what a jab was when he fought Tyson. It's almost like it was in his contract not to use it.

[salsanchezfan]

Yep, Ruddock totally forgot what a jab was when he fought Tyson. It's almost like it was in his contract not to use it.


..........Christ, that was frustrating to watch. He had the fight. Tyson was there to be taken. All he had to do was put his shots together, even just a little. He wouldn't do it.

[My dinner with Conteh]

By the way Fan of Sal, did you check out my comment about Saad's upbringing. Am I right about the story where he found out who he really was?

[salsanchezfan]

By the way Fan of Sal, did you check out my comment about Saad's upbringing. Am I right about the story where he found out who he really was?


..........Hadn't seen that. Lemme go look.....

[Muchmoore]

Just watched some of Ruddock-Tyson 1 again. Tyson would lose to Holyfield in 91, he wasn't putting his punches together well at all, just looking for the one punch

[My dinner with Conteh]

..........Hadn't seen that. Lemme go look.....


I'll look later too. I'm sure I have something about it, but can't quite place the year it appeared. I'm guessing around 1981? If you (or anyone) can place the year I'll search through my archives.

[salsanchezfan]

I'll look later too. I'm sure I have something about it, but can't quite place the year it appeared. I'm guessing around 1981? If you (or anyone) can place the year I'll search through my archives.


..........God, I had so many boxing magazines a few years back it was insane. I kept every one I ever bought from 1983 to 1998 including dozens of back issues of much older ones I'd bought, literally hundreds. Then around that time I lost interest in boxing, and was set to move. I didn't want to carry all that stuff around, so I threw them all out except maybe a dozen that I thought might be collector's items. All gone.


What a fucking tool. :patsch

[ironchamp]

Holyfield, of course.


What exactly about Tyson was so much better in 1991 as opposed to 1996? His power? No. Speed? Eh. When exactly did he show any ability to fight back against an opponent that steadily put pressure on him? The answer is never.

Before one pulls the Ruddock rematch out as evidence he could go hard for twelve rounds, look at that fight again. Tyson was rocked a few times, and survived only because Ruddock seemed content to throw one huge "huppercut" at a time, spread out about one every so often. Tyson would take the punch, get rocked, back off, collect himself, and go at it again. Holyfield would not allow him the luxury of the time off between shots, even if they weren't as powerful. Hence, Tyson cannot recover.

Mike's timing was a lot better, he WAS faster contrary to what you believe, he seemed a little more fluid, more agile and most importantly his mentality was better. He would have gone into that fight in 1991 knowing full well what kind of oppenent he had in front of him and would fight accordingly.

The Ruddock fights merely indicate that Tyson can fight back when hit and can fight for 12 rounds. How he looked in that fight is in response to Ruddock; you only react to what you have in front of you. Holyfield said that the way he fought Bert Cooper is not how he would have fought Mike Tyson. Well the way Tyson fought Ruddock is not the same way he would have fought Holyfield.


The best analogy I can think of is this:

If a career in boxing is similar to making a car and the closer you are to your peak the more parts you have available to make that car with then Tyson is a fighter who is better at making cars than Evander if he has all the tools to do so but as time progresses and he moves further away from his peak, he's a fighter who will still try to make a conventional car even though he's missing a wheel. Holyfield on the other hand will make three wheeled car.

The point is in 1996 Holyfield was seasoned, experienced at HW and his level of activity was pretty good and his ability to adjust was excellent. In 1996 Tyson "hadn't been hit" in the 8 rounds leading up to Holyfield fight. In 1991 Tyson fresh of the Ruddock bouts with a healthy level of ring activity would have been more ready for Holyfield. And he would have beaten him.

Tyson UD12 or TKO8

[Stonehands89]

he had 96 tyson's number. 96 tyson was about 12% the fighter 86 tyson was. hell, even 96 tyson had a few moments and won a couple of rounds.

Holyfield claims, and many believe him, that he handled Tyson when they were amateurs sparring. Regardless of when Tyson faced Holyfield as HWs, it is clear to me that Holyfield had the style to neutralize Tyson, the mentality to intimidate him, and the character to defeat him emotionally, mentally, and then physically.

Would you care to dispute that?

[ironchamp]

Holyfield claims, and many believe him, that he handled Tyson when they were amateurs sparring. Regardless of when Tyson faced Holyfield as HWs, it is clear to me that Holyfield had the style to neutralize Tyson, the mentality to intimidate him, and the character to defeat him emotionally, mentally, and then physically.

Would you care to dispute that?

I can't dispute the validity of thier encounters as amatuers but I will disupte you follwing statement.

Having the style to neutralize him means that theoretically anyway that it will make for a great fight but hardly means that that he will beat him.

Problem is that you are speaking retrospect. In 1991 if you said that HOLYFIELD had the mentality to INTIMIDATE Mike Tyson you would have been laughed at and rightfully so. In 1991 Tyson's persona, his mental stablity, and his physical ability were intact. The more I think about it the more I realize that he would have beaten very brave Holyfield and go on to face a much tougher test in Bowe.

[Stonehands89]

I don't think that you have an honest grasp of Tyson's personality.

He was, in fact, RIDDLED with insecurity about who he was and what his capabilities were. Are you one of those young urbanites who actually believed his bravado? It was as transparant as glass. A more accurate glimpse of the man's true essence is that scene where he is crying on Teddy Atlas's shoulder because he was afraid of losing an amateur competition.

Now, Holyfield is a different beast altogether -he had serious character and serious confidence and Tyson knew it.

Granted, Tyson always had a puncher's chance and while the chances of Tyson landing are good shot or shots are significant indeed, the chances of Holyfield going to sleep or wilting are very slim.

No, Holyfield has the style and the strategic know-how to beat Tyson 9 out of 10 times. And if Tyson wasn't intimidated before the bell rang, he would be by about round 8 when Holyfield is still there, countering and catching Tyson on the chin. In a battle of wills, Tyson folds first. And that is what Holyfield would force.

[ironchamp]

I don't think that you have an honest grasp of Tyson's personality.

He was, in fact, RIDDLED with insecurity about who he was and what his capabilities were. Are you one of those young urbanites who actually believed his bravado? It was as transparant as glass. A more accurate glimpse of the man's true essence is that scene where he is crying on Teddy Atlas's shoulder because he was afraid of losing an amateur competition.

Now, Holyfield is a different beast altogether -he had serious character and serious confidence and Tyson knew it.

Granted, Tyson always had a puncher's chance and while the chances of Tyson landing are good shot or shots are significant indeed, the chances of Holyfield going to sleep or wilting are very slim.

No, Holyfield has the style and the strategic know-how to beat Tyson 9 out of 10 times. And if Tyson wasn't intimidated before the bell rang, he would be by about round 8 when Holyfield is still there, countering and catching Tyson on the chin. In a battle of wills, Tyson folds first. And that is what Holyfield would force.

I have an honest grasp of his personality but I'm on to believe that in 1991 the fight would have been competitive without being close in terms of scoring.
Look at the Tillis fight. That was a fight which Tyson was clearly frustrated, he couldnt put Tillis away and Tillis was swinging till the closing bell. James was unsuccessful but it was evident that Tyson's so called "weak mentality" wasnt there. Look at the Douglas fight- Douglas was beating Tyson from pillar to post but Tyson never got intimidated in that fight. He didnt fight scared, he didnt quit- he fought and tried to turn things around. It seems to me that you've bought the Holyfield warrior mentality that was created to compensate of his lack of size and power at HW. When Evander fought Riddick Bowe he put his all in it- and then Bowe beat him twice. 3x in the eyes of some people.

Your logic of Holyfield beating Tyson lies squarely on the intagibles and the assumption that Mike will fold in this fight. I dont see him folding but I do see Evander raising his stock losing to Tyson via a Gallant effort.

[salsanchezfan]

Mike's timing was a lot better, he WAS faster contrary to what you believe, he seemed a little more fluid, more agile and most importantly his mentality was better. He would have gone into that fight in 1991 knowing full well what kind of oppenent he had in front of him and would fight accordingly.

The Ruddock fights merely indicate that Tyson can fight back when hit and can fight for 12 rounds. How he looked in that fight is in response to Ruddock; you only react to what you have in front of you. Holyfield said that the way he fought Bert Cooper is not how he would have fought Mike Tyson. Well the way Tyson fought Ruddock is not the same way he would have fought Holyfield.


The best analogy I can think of is this:

If a career in boxing is similar to making a car and the closer you are to your peak the more parts you have available to make that car with then Tyson is a fighter who is better at making cars than Evander if he has all the tools to do so but as time progresses and he moves further away from his peak, he's a fighter who will still try to make a conventional car even though he's missing a wheel. Holyfield on the other hand will make three wheeled car.

The point is in 1996 Holyfield was seasoned, experienced at HW and his level of activity was pretty good and his ability to adjust was excellent. In 1996 Tyson "hadn't been hit" in the 8 rounds leading up to Holyfield fight. In 1991 Tyson fresh of the Ruddock bouts with a healthy level of ring activity would have been more ready for Holyfield. And he would have beaten him.

Tyson UD12 or TKO8



............I would first say that Tyson did not have the option of fighting Holyfield any differently than he did anyone else. He had one speed; forward. At any point in his career. Holyfield showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knew how to handle such straight-ahead tactics. Let us not forget Holyfield was also faster and more agile in 1991 than in 1996. It could very well be argued he was more worn than Tyson.

I also don;t understand the point you're trying to make when you say Tyson was just dealing "what he had in front of him" against Ruddock. If this were true, he should have cleaned up. Ruddock held his left low, threw only one punch at a time, and refused to pressure Tyson. The fact that Tyson still couldn't stop him is further evidence that he didn't have what it took in 1991 to beat someone like Holyfield.

[Ted Stickles]

The difference btween Tyson 91 and Tyson 96 is that Tyson 91 still wanted to fight .when he got out of jail he never had the original desire anymore he just was there for the money mostly.I would probably very very slightly lean towards Tyson but you can never ever count out a great fighter like Evander..

[salsanchezfan]

The difference btween Tyson 91 and Tyson 96 is that Tyson 91 still wanted to fight .when he got out of jail he never had the original desire anymore he just was there for the money mostly


.............I don't agree. By 1991, the wheels were already falling off the cart, and he was in the tailspin that resulted in his layoff and eventual comeback. It wasn't like life just suddenly went bad for him during and after the incarceration. It's not that simple. He was on the fast track to "Bolivian" :lol: from a very early age.

[Ted Stickles]

.............I don't agree. By 1991, the wheels were already falling off the cart, and he was in the tailspin that resulted in his layoff and eventual comeback. It wasn't like life just suddenly went bad for him during and after the incarceration. It's not that simple. He was on the fast track to "Bolivian" :lol: from a very early age.

Your correct because it was obvious that after the Spinx fight he became more of a bomber, but i just mean that his desire was stronger then and that would have made it harder to break his spirit as it was a lot easier after prison when his desire was minimal...

[bigG]

tyson NEVER fought 12 rounds at a good pace....or even two or three!!!....he liked to fight in savage spurts, then enter into 'silent contracts' with his oponents, each gaining a moments respite in the eye of the storm...holyfield would force tyson to fight at a good pace throughout and possibly stop a tiring tyson in the late rounds, more likely win a u/d......i just cant see 'vander being intimidated by tyson or caving into his doubtless innnordinate power...this would phase mike, whether he showed it or not......im not knocking tyson, he wreaked havoc during his glory years and is a genuine atg...just think holy always had too much everything for him...regardless when they fought...

[Stonehands89]

I have an honest grasp of his personality but I'm on to believe that in 1991 the fight would have been competitive without being close in terms of scoring.
Look at the Tillis fight. That was a fight which Tyson was clearly frustrated, he couldnt put Tillis away and Tillis was swinging till the closing bell. James was unsuccessful but it was evident that Tyson's so called "weak mentality" wasnt there. Look at the Douglas fight- Douglas was beating Tyson from pillar to post but Tyson never got intimidated in that fight. He didnt fight scared, he didnt quit- he fought and tried to turn things around.

Tillis? Douglas? Why would Tyson be intimidated by either of them? Those examples do not disprove my assertions because neither were much more than journeymen and had nothing like the accomplishments and reputation that Holyfield had. Holyfield was a proven quantity.

Tyson did not "quit" on Douglas, but he was fighting in a haze because of the repeated head blows. That fight proved to me that his recuperative powers are not to be celebrated. Once hurt, Tyson's confidence was depleted -and many confuse confidence with desperation.

It seems to me that you've bought the Holyfield warrior mentality that was created to compensate of his lack of size and power at HW. When Evander fought Riddick Bowe he put his all in it- and then Bowe beat him twice. 3x in the eyes of some people.

Holyfield's warrior mentality was forged in fire -it was not "created as some kind of compensation"... and the critique about his lack of power was imaginary -the man could bang and history has proven it. I was conviced in 1989 when he stopped granite-chinned Dokes who came in at a well-conditioned 230 pounds. He dropped Bowe with one shot and had him out before gassing out. He dropped Mercer and no one could drop Mercer -not even Lewis. He stopped Tyson. Enough said -any argument against Holyfield's power is flat and out-of-date.

Your logic of Holyfield beating Tyson lies squarely on the intagibles and the assumption that Mike will fold in this fight. I dont see him folding but I do see Evander raising his stock losing to Tyson via a Gallant effort.

The foundation of pugilistic superiority always originates in intangibles. Desire, ruthlessness, etc. However, you are inaccurate when you claim that I think Holyfield wins simply because of his superior character. Read what I already wrote about Holyfield's style and how it is the foil for Tyson's style. His character is the engine, but it is his skill that delivers. Holyfield was always confident in his ability to defeat Tyson and it rooted squarely in specifics -not intangibles.

[Holmes' Jab]

Holyfield SD15 Tyson at this stage.

I posted my explaination a few months ago concerning this one, but I'm drunk, lazy and on holidays at the mo so I'll try and find the link for it.

[streetsaresafer]

Holy up 5 votes here, but down 9 votes on the main forum

[Silver]

Holyfield claims, and many believe him, that he handled Tyson when they were amateurs sparring. Regardless of when Tyson faced Holyfield as HWs, it is clear to me that Holyfield had the style to neutralize Tyson, the mentality to intimidate him, and the character to defeat him emotionally, mentally, and then physically.

Would you care to dispute that?you maybe putting too much on the intimidation deal. but as far as the tools, holy had them to give any version of tyson problems. the only version of tyson that could win was the 87-88 cut and even then it would be a difficult fight. by 1991, tyson had already become a headhunter who could be outboxed. this what you saw with douglas.

[NickHudson]

Stoney,

I think you are under rating both Douglas and Tyson on that particular night.

Douglas threw combinations of punches that were superior to anything I have ever seen Holyfield throw. They were slick, extremely fast, accurate, extremely powerful and sustained for a huge amount of time. Unlike Holyfield, Douglas stayed quick and sharp througout the fight, right into the late rounds.

I am also surprised at your conclusion that Tyson's recuperative powers are not to be celebrated. After watching the same fight I was hugely impressed by the total punishment Tyson was able to absorb, and also his ability to keep trying, and to keep creating chances, right 'til the end.



Tyson did not "quit" on Douglas, but he was fighting in a haze because of the repeated head blows. That fight proved to me that his recuperative powers are not to be celebrated.

[prime]

I think Tyson takes it.

a) Tyson was hungry, a year removed from his humbling in Tokyo. Unlike what many appear to think, Mike Tyson was a warrior, a man who overcame a horrible childhood to get it together and become one of the most dominating heavyweight champions in history. Not many can say that. He would fight Evander Holyfield tooth and nail. All talk about someone “having someone’s number” would be irrelevant once the bell rang.

b) Holyfield was not invincible, but looked pretty beatable in defeating two very old men and a mediocre opponent in 35-7-Bert Cooper. Foreman’s shots bothered Vander, Cooper’s punch shocked him. The Tyson that ruined Razor Ruddock could get to Holy, notwithstanding all the “heart” in the world.

c) Tyson had more of his unique speed-and-power combination than in ’96, while Holy was less bulked up than in ’96. It is the same five-pound difference as between the Cooper-fight Cassius Clay (207) and the Cleveland-Williams-fight juggernaut Ali (212). Just as the heavier version of Ali is noticeably more powerful and well-rounded, so the ’96 version of Holy was noticeably bulkier and able to withstand post-prison Tyson’s sizzling shots. A pre-prison Tyson could break the leaner Holy.

d) All this matters because Holyfield could only fight Tyson one way, and that is how he did it in ’96, when Tyson was close to breaking Holy at certain stages of the fight. Of course I believe the peak Mike Tyson could beat any version of Holyfield, regardless of any stories about Holy heroics in standing up to young Mike. The tangibles and intangibles still lean more towards Mike Tyson in 1991.

[Stonehands89]

you maybe putting too much on the intimidation deal. but as far as the tools, holy had them to give any version of tyson problems. the only version of tyson that could win was the 87-88 cut and even then it would be a difficult fight. by 1991, tyson had already become a headhunter who could be outboxed. this what you saw with douglas.

I agree that the 87-88 version of Tyson would have a better shot... precisely because his corner would prop him up over his natural doubt and insecurities. I am convinced that he saw in Holyfield a man who had truly mastered fear. Tyson never did. I believe that Tyson was intimidated by that.

However, you may not be wrong in thinking that I may be emphasizing intimidation too much. It is an inference I make based on the following factors:

1. Whenever Tyson faced unintimidated and skilled opposition who could take his shots and punch right back -Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis... he did not find the will to overcome them and he did not adapt his plan to overcome the challenge. Rooney's exit did much to negatively effect the latter point.

2. His trainers will all tell you that Tyson was emotionally immature and insecure. He knew fear, and that over-the-top bravado you saw when the last Cus connection left and King took over got more and more indicative of that insecurity.

3. Tyson bit Holyfield's ear because he wanted out. He was frustrated because he couldn't beat Holyfield and Holyfield was already hurting him in round one. How can I be so sure? After Mills Lane signalled that the fight would continue, Tyson went out and did it again. He wanted out. Atlas predicted exactly that before the fight.

Normally, I don't like to assume a man's mindset. That becomes voodoo too fast. But with Tyson, it is just too clear to overlook.

[Stonehands89]

Stoney,

I think you are under rating both Douglas and Tyson on that particular night.

Douglas threw combinations of punches that were superior to anything I have ever seen Holyfield throw. They were slick, extremely fast, accurate, extremely powerful and sustained for a huge amount of time. Unlike Holyfield, Douglas stayed quick and sharp througout the fight, right into the late rounds.

I am also surprised at your conclusion that Tyson's recuperative powers are not to be celebrated. After watching the same fight I was hugely impressed by the total punishment Tyson was able to absorb, and also his ability to keep trying, and to keep creating chances, right 'til the end.

I agree with all my heart how masterful Douglas was that night. After watching that, I was running around calling out a prime Ali. He looked that good. I was most impressed with the placement of his shots and the variety of the combinations as well as the speed. Douglas the most focussed fighter I'd ever seen that night. The Douglas who showed up for the Holyfield fight was about as much of the one before as Duran was in Orleans. A shame that he couldn't muster up the same determination for a second time... because Holyfield had a world of trouble with big fast men.

As to Tyson's recuperative powers... No, I stand by the observation that they were not what they should have been, or not what you would expect. I think that you are mistaking durability for will. He was fighting on instinct in both that and the first Holyfield fight after about round 5. You could see him getting weaker. You could see his legs start to get unsteady. What you saw "creating chances" was merely trying to set up one big shot. I saw no real strategy and no real determination.

I saw the peek-a-boo defense suddenly make an appearance... that was telling me that he was feeling vulnerable. It was like he was 15 years old and Cus was in his ear. I call that regression!

Whenever Tyson got hurt or went down, he never went on to win. Frankly, and I hate to offend his young fans out here, he did not have the character to sustain greatness and defeat dragons.

He had great talent and ability that masked that void and made him look unstoppable, but boxing has a way of showing you who you really are sooner or later... Tyson was beast on the outside but inside he was crying out for a hug.

[Muchmoore]

As to Tyson's recuperative powers... No, I stand by the observation that they were not what they should have been, or not what you would expect. I think that you are mistaking durability for will. He was fighting on instinct in both that and the first Holyfield fight after about round 5. You could see him getting weaker. You could see his legs start to get unsteady. What you saw "creating chances" was merely trying to set up one big shot. I saw no real strategy and no real determination.

Whenever Tyson got hurt or went down, he never went on to win. Frankly, and I hate to offend his young fans out here, he did not have the character to sustain greatness and defeat dragons.

He had great talent and ability that masked that void and made him look unstoppable, but boxing has a way of showing you who you really are sooner or later... Tyson was beast on the outside but inside he was crying out for a hug.

I dont know, Tyson was stunned against Tucker early as well as Bruno. Tyson shook it off both times and went on to win easily. Ruddock also landed many giant punches on him that he shook off as nothing.

The fact is, Tyson was hurt several times and shook it off and went on to win. Just because he had a granite chin and that led to him never being dropped unless he was nearly unconcious doesn't hurt his legacy.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I dont know, Tyson was stunned against Tucker early as well as Bruno. Tyson shook it off both times and went on to win easily. Ruddock also landed many giant punches on him that he shook off as nothing.


Tyson was pretty good at shrugging off single shots. ;)

[Muchmoore]

Tyson was pretty good at shrugging off single shots. ;)

When did he ever get hit with combinations at his peak? Really never.

[My dinner with Conteh]

When did he ever get hit with combinations at his peak? Really never.



When he did (Douglas, Holyfield) he didn't appear to take a punch quite as well, although still impressive I might add. He was peak enough in 1990 too.

[Stonehands89]

I dont know, Tyson was stunned against Tucker early as well as Bruno. Tyson shook it off both times and went on to win easily. Ruddock also landed many giant punches on him that he shook off as nothing.

The fact is, Tyson was hurt several times and shook it off and went on to win. Just because he had a granite chin and that led to him never being dropped unless he was nearly unconcious doesn't hurt his legacy.

Tucker had a good, solid showing against Tyson when Tyson was very dangerous -however, Tyson was, to borrow Peter McNeely's phrase, in his cocoon of love with the D'Amato remnants. Tyson's confidence came from the outside in and his seconds understood his psychology.

Bruno had no intention of winning either of his fights with Tyson. He probably apologized to Tyson every time he accidentally connected.

...and like Conteh already stated, Ruddock was landing one booming shot at a time. The width of Tyson's neck could pass those brief pop quizzes. During grueling exams, Tyson's neck wasn't enough.

[Silver]

I agree that the 87-88 version of Tyson would have a better shot... precisely because his corner would prop him up over his natural doubt and insecurities. I am convinced that he saw in Holyfield a man who had truly mastered fear. Tyson never did. I believe that Tyson was intimidated by that.

However, you may not be wrong in thinking that I may be emphasizing intimidation too much. It is an inference I make based on the following factors:

1. Whenever Tyson faced unintimidated and skilled opposition who could take his shots and punch right back -Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis... he did not find the will to overcome them and he did not adapt his plan to overcome the challenge. Rooney's exit did much to negatively effect the latter point.

2. His trainers will all tell you that Tyson was emotionally immature and insecure. He knew fear, and that over-the-top bravado you saw when the last Cus connection left and King took over got more and more indicative of that insecurity.

3. Tyson bit Holyfield's ear because he wanted out. He was frustrated because he couldn't beat Holyfield and Holyfield was already hurting him in round one. How can I be so sure? After Mills Lane signalled that the fight would continue, Tyson went out and did it again. He wanted out. Atlas predicted exactly that before the fight.

Normally, I don't like to assume a man's mindset. That becomes voodoo too fast. But with Tyson, it is just too clear to overlook.preperation and stragety had alot to do with it. tyson by 1989, was a fighter who soley relied on power. so you saying he was unable to overcome vs. lewis, holy and douglas has to do more with simply being outsmarted. a good technical boxer will more then likely beat a headhunter. he tried the best he could vs. douglas, but couldnt beat him same with lewis and holyfield. as for the holyfield fight, he bit him because he was losing but also the way he losing. not only was he getting outboxed and outfought but he was getting roughed up. he kind of felt like a victim in a sense and was fustrated but he did want out. you didnt see him take a that route vs. holy I, douglas or lewis becasue he knew he they were better that night. in the bite fight, head clashes and not being able to avoid the inevitable came together to cause the that crazy act. in the end, tyson wasnt aslways sure of himself which caused doubt in his mind but being prepared and being a well-rounded fighter with rooney helped surpress that self-doubt. once he was all alone, you saw what happened. could holyfield bring out that flaw in tyson of 88'. quite possibilty but it not entirely certain.

[Rattler]

Holyfield has the intelligence to fight Tyson in a manner that diminishes Tyson's momentum. Mike is the grade A example of a downhill fighter. When things are going his way, he will fight with the intention of overwhelming his opponent. Holyfield, was much more likely to fight as the flow of the fight demands it. He wouldn't let any version of Mike Tyson to do what he wanted or try to weather it. Whether it's the occasional headbutt, lateral movement or clinching, Holy will slow down Tyson's engine in the moment to give himself time to regroup and make Tyson do the same.

Eventually, Tyson is going to allow Holy's intentions to affect his own. He'll become less consistent in his defense and offensive attack and Holy will take advantage of it. Holyfield could fight successfully with a counter offense, whereas Tyson wanted to influence his opponent by testing their will to take what Tyson will have to offer.

The difference is, that Holy will do what's necessary to stem the tide that Tyson is comfortable with; and when Tyson settles into a lull, Holy will take advantage of it.

Holyfield UD (8-4)

[Stonehands89]

preperation and stragety had alot to do with it. tyson by 1989, was a fighter who soley relied on power. so you saying he was unable to overcome vs. lewis, holy and douglas has to do more with simply being outsmarted. a good technical boxer will more then likely beat a headhunter. he tried the best he could vs. douglas, but couldnt beat him same with lewis and holyfield. as for the holyfield fight, he bit him because he was losing but also the way he losing. not only was he getting outboxed and outfought but he was getting roughed up. he kind of felt like a victim in a sense and was fustrated but he did want out. you didnt see him take a that route vs. holy I, douglas or lewis becasue he knew he they were better that night. in the bite fight, head clashes and not being able to avoid the inevitable came together to cause the that crazy act. in the end, tyson wasnt aslways sure of himself which caused doubt in his mind but being prepared and being a well-rounded fighter with rooney helped surpress that self-doubt. once he was all alone, you saw what happened. could holyfield bring out that flaw in tyson of 88'. quite possibilty but it not entirely certain.

Yes... except that I think that Tyson's technical deterioration happened a little more gradually upon Rooney's exit. I think that without the grounding and discipline of Rooney, he began to believe that hype -that his quick blast-outs would happen with or without an eye on technique and delivery.

His mental approach deteriorated into thug-dom too. At one point in the 90s he said something like "it's me or it's him". That is a huge red flag! "Do or die" is too primitive a statement for a great fighter. A great fighter would say, "do, or find plan B."

What kind of warrior has no contingency plan?? Bums and barbarians.

[Silver]

Yes... except that I think that Tyson's technical deterioration happened a little more gradually upon Rooney's exit. I think that without the grounding and discipline of Rooney, he began to believe that hype -that his quick blast-outs would happen with or without an eye on technique and delivery.

His mental approach deteriorated into thug-dom too. At one point in the 90s he said something like "it's me or it's him". That is a huge red flag! "Do or die" is too primitive a statement for a great fighter. A great fighter would say, "do, or find plan B."

What kind of warrior has no contingency plan?? Bums and barbarians.well it goes to show that talent isnt everything . a true atg's prime should not fly by like that. shows that tyson lacked maturity. as for not having a plan b. well you know the man is a straight forward fight. not like he can turn into something hes not. things like more consistence headmovement, going to the body, using the right hand more etc. etc. etc. would have helped him in his losses but at the at of the day, you can't change his style. being tough dosent you need multiple game plans. being smart and being prepared is. tyson lacked the later.

[ironchamp]

Tyson being a swarmer doesnt need much of a plan b aside from being patient and mixing up his attack if he's not doing that already.

What isnt being pointed out is that Holyfield at some point in the fight would get hurt/stunned and in the process his instincts would prompt him to fight back instead of sticking to the game plan and boxing.

In 1991 Evander hadnt gone thru the Riddick Bowe fights which IMO was his biggest learning experience in the HW division. Before those fights his self belief in his resiliance and durability and ability to fight prompted him to slug when he should box. Against Tyson this wouldn't work. Holyfield didnt really headbutt much until he started losing his step. So that won't come in to play and Tyson's endurance was good enough to last him till the end.

Forget the Douglas loss for a second. Tyson respected Holyfield and would train accordingly and would fight accordingly. So had this fight actually happened we would have seen a very good version of Tyson fighting Evander. In the end the decision would have gone to Tyson based on effective aggression.

[hobgoblin]

When he did (Douglas, Holyfield) he didn't appear to take a punch quite as well, although still impressive I might add. He was peak enough in 1990 too.

Anyone who gets hit with a FAST 4 punch combination will be shaken. I thought he took the combinations of Douglas very well (until the end when they finally accumulated). Tyson recovered and kept coming. In Holyfield's case - he was heavily concussed from the headbutts (Holy won the fight with his boxing skills & strategy & toughness but without the headbutts I think he'd have gotten a clear UD rather than TKO). George Foreman has a great chin but he seemed heavily staggered by the punches of Muhammad Ali. Anyone hit with fast combinations will be shaken. When he faced Lewis - he couldn't take a punch as well as in his youth because part of being able to take a punch is being in top shape & young so you can recover quickly and so Lewis combinations were even worse for him than they would be in 1990.

[Robbi]

Some great posts. I'll keep it short and simple. Holyfield would always have handed Tyson his assssssss.

[streetsaresafer]

I don't think the headbutts are what led to the knockout of Tyson.
Tyson said after the first fight that he didn't really remember anything after the 6th round. Tyson got knocked down in the 6th. It wasn't until the 7th that there was that serious clash of the heads.

[ironchamp]

I don't think the headbutts are what led to the knockout of Tyson.
Tyson said after the first fight that he didn't really remember anything after the 6th round. Tyson got knocked down in the 6th. It wasn't until the 7th that there was that serious clash of the heads.

The 7th round was the first serious clash in heads but there were headbutts before that. The headbutts slowed him down considerably.

[streetsaresafer]

The only significant clash of the heads before the 7th was the one that cut Tyson. And it looked very minor to me and unintentional (not like Golota against Bowe in their 2nd fight where he pulls Bowe's head into his).

My point is that whatever clash of the heads there were, none of them was significant in terms of damaging Tyson. Yeah he had the cut, but it wasn't that serious of a cut. I think the knockdown, coupled with already gitting hit with quite a few shots before, is what led to Tyson not remembering anything from the 6th round on.

The 'butt' in the 7th round is interesting - it looks to me like Tyson is leading with his head and clashes heads with Holyfield. Either way, while I would have loved for no clashing of the heads to occur, I don't think they impacted the fight as significantly as some claim.

[Holmes' Jab]

Holyfield wins, either by close decision (possibly late TKO).

I reckon this fight would unfold similarly to the '96 bout, though would most likely be a fair bit more competitive approaching the later rounds. Incidently I think Holyfield has Tyson's number at any stage from '91 onwards.

[streetsaresafer]

How about had they fought in 89 or 90? See I think Tyson had a better chance in 91 than 89-90 because in 89-90 he was ripe for a fall. Had the car crash (suicide attempt possibly), Robbin Givens divorce finalized in 89, Rooney gone and enter Jay Bright, thought he was invincible perhaps.

Where as in 91, Tyson had 4 straight wins including the 2 impressive wins over Rudduck. Also Giachetti - while no Rooney, was clearly an upgrade over Jay Bright.

Also, Tyson would have been more motivated to take the fight seriously than 89/90, especially since Holyfield was the undefeated champion, and had just won an impressive decisive decision win over Foreman (whom Tyson was skittish about fighting). Tyson respected Holyfield, knowing him from the 84 Olympics. Tyson also would be fighting to win the undisputed heavweight championship of the world again, which provides motivation as well.

So to me the dyanmics of the fight in 91 are better than a fight between them in 89-90.

So I think the fight would have actually been better in 91 than in 89 or 90.
91 is the best time they could have fought in their whole careers. 88 doesn't work because Holyfield had just turned heavy and Tyson had already fired Rooney so that year is out of the question. It was not until the Dokes win in March of 89 that Holyfield became the number one contender.

[streetsaresafer]

Holyfield now ahead on both forums votes wise, though it is still close.

[streetsaresafer]

I think another thing that hasn't been said is that both Holyfield and Tyson's stock would be higher had they fought in 91 (instead of 96).

A Holyfield win would have legitimized him much earlier as a legit HW and a great fighter in his own right - thus giving more credibility to the rest of the HW division of the early 90s even after Tyson goes to jail.

A Tyson win clearly would have been his best win. Also, one would have to think that a losing Holyfield would lose gallantly and in a very competitive fashion thus making it Mike's toughest fight (other than Douglas). Thus there probably would have been public clamor for a rematch. Also, Holyfield had enough resiliency that a loss to Tyson would not have knocked him out of the HW picture, he still would have been a player.

[ironchamp]

I think another thing that hasn't been said is that both Holyfield and Tyson's stock would be higher had they fought in 91 (instead of 96).

A Holyfield win would have legitimized him much earlier as a legit HW and a great fighter in his own right - thus giving more credibility to the rest of the HW division of the early 90s even after Tyson goes to jail.

A Tyson win clearly would have been his best win. Also, one would have to think that a losing Holyfield would lose gallantly and in a very competitive fashion thus making it Mike's toughest fight (other than Douglas). Thus there probably would have been public clamor for a rematch. Also, Holyfield had enough resiliency that a loss to Tyson would not have knocked him out of the HW picture, he still would have been a player.

If the fight came off and shortly afterwards Mike went to prison as Champ. History would have been kinder to Mike.

Again, I'm one to believe that Holyfield matured better and never let his fading reflexes limit his game. He made adjustments. Tyson on the other had didn't make adjustments and attempted to fight the same way he did when he was younger but instead of pulling the 3-4 punch combos that he was capable of doing earlier in his career. He'd throw one punch at a time because that was all he was capable of doing. In 1991 this wouldnt have been an issue. Mike was still Mike. Sure he wasnt under Rooney but IMO he was good enough, quick enough, and young enough to beat his contemporaries.

[streetsaresafer]

Yeah that to me is why a 91 fight would have been so compelling - you can make great arguments for either fighter. Also, practically speaking, 91 would have been the best time for the 2 guys to fight each other. Holyfield was prime, and Tyson was still close to his.

I still say that 91 Tyson was better than 89-90 Tyson and that is why the fight would have been best in 91. Unfortunately it is impossible to imagine a scenario where a prime Tyson would fight a prime Holyfield since Tyson's prime ended in 88, and Holyfield was just starting.

[Blacc Jesus]

I gotta go with Holyfield.