1991 - Holyfield/Tyson - Who Wins?

[streetsaresafer]

November 8th, 1991 - Holyfield/Tyson

Greetings, just my 3rd post here at ESB but I have been a frequent lurker. I posted this already on the classic forum but I thought I'd post it here as well to give people a chance to respond.

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?

Note - The reason why I did not ask about 88 Tyson v. Holyfield in an ideal prime v. prime matchup is that the fight could not have happened realistically. Rooney was gone after the Spinx fight and Holy was just getting started at heavy with Tillis. Earliest they could have met was 89 after Holy's win over Dokes.

Here's my breakdown of their bout in 91 -

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, where as the Holy of 96 while not prime, was still formidable. Tyson I consider still formidable in 96, but certainly not prime (86-88).

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. In 91, 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. Handspeed wise Holy was almost as fast as Tyson as well.

I see the fight being 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 the 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. I put the odds that 70-30 in favor of a Holyfield win.

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 3rd time poster, and frequent lurker, I am curious as to how people think this fight would have turned out?

[kg0208]

I think that Holyfield always beats Tyson.

[brooklyn1550]

I think that Holyfield always beats Tyson.

Agreed

[Dr Gonzo]

by 1991 Tyson was on the down i reckon - didnt look that great against Ruddock in the 2nd fight. Holyfield by UD

[kg0208]

It's not the physical part I am scared of here because I believe Tyson is a greater athlete than Holyfield. But it's the lack of focus and brainpower from Tyson, he should have never lost to Buster Douglas in a million years. With Cus in the corner it's no way Evander would win, dig his body up and let's put him back in the corner, two 40 year old HW.

I actually think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Not a harder puncher obviously. Just physically stronger.

[brooklyn1550]

I actually think Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Not a harder puncher obviously. Just physically stronger.

Looking at the way he handled Tyson in the clinches and was pushing him back, I would say that's a fair assessment.

[sues2nd]

Sorry, I just dont see any version of Tyson beating Evander. I know the Tyson fanatics will be out in full force to flame me....but I have always felt this way.

[RagingBull]

Hoyfield's frame was too small in 1991. That was right after he moved up from light heavyweight (crusier weight now). Tyson is about twice as strong as Qawi who Holyfield took alot of damage from and has a similiar style to tyson. Holyfield has a hard time with that inside fighter type. I think Tyson KO's Holy in 2. If the fight goes more than 2 Holy probably wins.

[Unforgiven]

Hoyfield's frame was too small in 1991. That was right after he moved up from light heavyweight (crusier weight now). Tyson is about twice as strong as Qawi who Holyfield took alot of damage from and has a similiar style to tyson. Holyfield has a hard time with that inside fighter type. I think Tyson KO's Holy in 2. If the fight goes more than 2 Holy probably wins.

Holyfield was 210 pounds by 1991.
He was 215 pounds when he beat Tyson up in 1996.

[lefthook31]

I think that version of Tyson was still a fighter. Tyson was never the same once he emerged from prision. The Tyson that fought Ruddock was still a determined fighter, with pretty good timing, and combination punching. I dont think Holyfield would have had enough to hang in there with Tyson, and remember at that time Tyson was capable of going 12 hard rounds. When he fought Holyfield the first time, he basically quit in the 5th.

[rendog67]

I think Tyson would have mad a much better fight of it and would give holyfield a bit of an early scare but i would take Holy to get through it and stop Tyson late

[Bigcat]

In 91 Tyson would have battered him, remember a fight not long after that time Evander was reeling from a shot from crack head cruiserweight Bert Cooper.. WTF would have a title hungry Tyson have done to him, Mike had just beat Alex Stewart in doublequick time, Alex gave a prime Holyfield 2 hard tests..

1991 Tyson..

anytime after 1993 Holyfield,
Jail took a lot out of Tyson in those missing years.

[El Bombasto]

Holyfield will always have Tyson's number.

[Unforgiven]

In 91 Tyson would have battered him, remember a fight not long after that time Evander was reeling from a shot from crack head cruiserweight Bert Cooper.. WTF would have a title hungry Tyson have done to him, Mike had just beat Alex Stewart in doublequick time, Alex gave a prime Holyfield 2 hard tests..

1991 Tyson..

anytime after 1993 Holyfield,
Jail took a lot out of Tyson in those missing years.

The Bert Cooper argument is silly.
Holyfield showed Cooper no respect and got caught coming in. Holyfield wasn't even employing lateral movement against Cooper, he was treated the guy with no respect and trying to get him out of there early. Cooper was a good puncher.
The argument is about as good as the Cassius Caly-Henry Cooper-Sonny Liston one. If Cooper can deck Clay with a left hook then Liston would pulverize him. No.

Holyfield had hard fights with Alex Stewart, who Tyson spanked in one, so Tyson must beat Holyfield ..... another flawed argument. Tyson was a fast starter and a puncher. Styles make fights.

[OBCboxer]

Tyson wins this one he was still hungry and ready to fight anyone. He would be ready to regain the titles he lost to Douglas in Tokyo.

[Sonny's jab]

If Tyson hadn't pulled out with another lame sicknote excuse we would have found out.

People look back and say "Tyson would have battered him" in 1989 or 1990 or 1991, but the record shows it was Tyson and his camp who kept ignoring the fight or messing up.

Holyfield's people Main Events were running open letter ads challenging Tyson to the fight from 1989 onwards, but Don King refused claiming they were demanding options on Tyson. They replied with another ad saying they had never demanding options because frankly they didn't believe Tyson could beat Holyfield.

Finally the match was pencilled in for June 1990, but Tyson fucked it up by getting beaten the shit out of by Buster Douglas.

Then Holyfield won the title against Douglas and gave Foreman a shot in a match the public demanded. Meanwhile, Tyson had to fight Razor Ruddock (a fighter he had ducked and cancelled a fight against back in Nov. '89), and had to fight him again because the fight was controversial. After the second fight, Don King was still shouting "we dont want Holyfield, we dont need Holyfield" .... but it was the fight the public wanted, set for November 1991.

I think Razor Ruddock must have punched the remaining heart out of Tyson because Tyson pulled out of the Holyfield fight with some excuse about ribs, or flu, or some other crap. But everyone knew Tyson was slacking and had already been arrested for rape. Truth is, Tyson wasn't particularly interested in fighting Holyfield back in 1991, that's why it didn't happen.

[hitman_hatton1]

i've always thought tyson would have won in 91.

he was a lot better than the 96 model we saw get owned by evander.

his stamina and speed were way better still.

although in saying that, holyfield was that bit sharper in 91. :bbb

tyson on pts.

[hitman_hatton1]

If Tyson hadn't pulled out with another lame sicknote excuse we would have found out.

he put his back out didn't he.

plus he had that rape trial looming.

hardly great prep for evander was it.

such a shame it never come off in 91. :-(

[streetsaresafer]

Some great responses here.

I'll chime in with my opinion on a prime 88 Tyson v. prime 90-91 Holyfield.
I think a matchup between these two prime v. prime does become 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. Regarding Cooper, I agree that the reason he got hurt there was the lack of respect. In any case, Holy 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. For the record, I consider Lewis's chin to be questionable, I would not go far as to call it weak (he did take shots from sluggers like Tua and Ruddock), but my point is that his chin could be gotten to and he could be put out. Getting 1-punch KO'd once to a 2nd tier fighter is a fluke perhaps (McCall), twice (Rahman) is enough that it is not unreasonable to think a prime Tyson puts Lewis out and in fact is the most likely scenario.

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

[Danny]

The Holyfield of 1991 may have been a sharper fighter than he was in 1996, but he was nowhere near as smart or as tactical in my view. Back around 1991, Holyfield was very susceptible to becoming involved in wars when it was not needed.

People may say the Bert Cooper is a silly argument, but the fact is, Cooper nearly beat Holyfield. If Evander got caught because he didn't respect Cooper, then that's Evander's fault for underestimating him.

In 1991, Tyson was very sharp as a fighter. Not at his best, but he was active with the fights with Ruddock, fought a solid opponent in Ruddock, who had real power. Some of the shots Tyson absorbed from Ruddock, ahowed what a great chin Tyson had.

If they would have fought back in Nov. 1991, Tyson would have taken him. I can't see either guy scoring a KO, but I would have fancied Tyson to stop Evander somewhere around the ninth.

Real shame, coz this is one of the fights I would have really wanted to see when it was first scheduled. Back in 1991, I think the fight had the potential to better than when they fought in 1996, even though I feel it would have been a shorter fight.

[goldnarms]

Holyfield beats Mike every time in my view. And thats with no disrespect to Mike at all.

Holyfield would NEVER have any fear of Mike thus taking away a strong advantage Mike had early in his career. Also, Holyfield has an AMAZING chin which also serves to reduce Mike’s advantages. Finally, Mike had proven that he maintains his power but would stop throwing combinations as fights went on( see Tony Tucker, Mitch Green and Bonecrusher Smith). Thus, only giving Holy about 3 or 4 rounds of any real danger since it was highly unlikly Mike was going to be able to one punch him. Holy proved this to us by taking HUGE shots from Foreman.

Holyfield was just all wrong for Mike.

[Zakman]

I think that Holyfield always beats Tyson.

Exactly. I know this will drive the Tyson fanatics crazy, but he beats the 80s Tyson too. Tyson NEVER faced anyone as good as Evander in his peak years, who would stand up to him and not be intimidated.

[kg0208]

Exactly. I know this will drive the Tyson fanatics crazy, but he beats the 80s Tyson too. Tyson NEVER faced anyone as good as Evander in his peak years, who would stand up to him and not be intimidated.

There lies the rub....Tyson never beat a great fighter. The ones he faced, he lost too. Holyfield was a level I don't think Tyson could tame. He had the skills too....but he didn't seem to have it in him.

[streetsaresafer]

Does any one know if Tyson's rib injury was legit or not? I assume he was hurt, but it would be really disappointing if he wasn't and just didn't want the fight for some reason.

In any case, in a perfect world this fight would have gone off as scheduled and us boxing fans would have a better picture as to who was better.

[anut]

mmmmmmmmmm......i think tyson that came outta pen was done.....tyson still past his best when he fought ruddock......ruddock stood tall but holyfield would fall......i think tyson would tko holy somwere in the fight.....:smoke

[Tuavale]

Probably Tyson. Prison absolutely ruined Iron Mike. Flabby Buster Mathis and non Hurricane Peter McNeely backed him up in comeback fights - for a little while. No one ever did that to him pre-prison.

[El Bombasto]

holyfield owns tyson today, yesterday, tommorrow

[Mind Reader]

my vote goes to "the real deal"

[No1Taylorfan]

I think Tyson wins it... most impressive fighter of my lifetime when he was on.

[Musashi]

I like Evander in this matchup. I agree with the original post. A younger Tyson might have made things more interesting, but Holyfield would have just a little bit more in the well to draw from.

Holyfield outlasts Tyson in a grueling fight and wins by late KO or close decision.

[hobgoblin]

Tyson just didn't employ enough strategy to be able to beat Holyfield. But who knows? He seemed to use a greater variety of punches in 1991 including using the right hand more (see Ruddock fights). Obviously Holy is an incomparably superior fighter to Ruddock but Tyson using the right hand more is a great sign for him. After prison, Tyson mostly overused the loopy left - whenever he called upon his right hand (Holyfield, Golota, Botha, etc) it served him well. Holy is the more reliable on so I pick Holy but I'm not putting money on it.

[JMotrain]

I think a lot of people underestimate Tyson even in 1991. Tyson use to fight Holyfield in their younger amateur days and I'm sure Tyson would train for Holyfield unlike he did for Buster Douglas. He knew how good Evander was.

Holyfield was such a stubborn son of a bitch that I think if Tyson didn't really beat him down early, Tyson might have become discouraged. The thing that the pre 1990 Tyson had going for him was that he hadn't lost yet. He hadn't faced any real adversity besides the Bruno fight, and we all know what happened in the Douglas fight.

So I think their are some questions, like is Tyson going to be in shape? And how will he handle Evander's pressure? Will he fold?

Tyson was a wreck at this point in his life, but he was still a very dangerous fighter. I'd predict Holyfield, but I'd say Tyson has a very good chance as well. It wouldn't be a beating like Tyson took in 96.

[hobgoblin]

It wouldn't be a beating like Tyson took in 96.

To be honest, I know for sure that the first 5 rounds were competitive (1 & 5 to Tyson; 2,3,4 to Holy) and I'm pretty sure that 6 & 7 were also competitive save for that off balance KD. Holy won it with his brilliant strategy, chin & heart, etc but the headbutts did concuss Tyson to slow him down more (headbutts are far worse than punches) and make him less competitive. It was NOT a one sided beating for majority of the fight.

[JMotrain]

To be honest, I know for sure that the first 5 rounds were competitive (1 & 5 to Tyson; 2,3,4 to Holy) and I'm pretty sure that 6 & 7 were also competitive save for that off balance KD. Holy won it with his brilliant strategy, chin & heart, etc but the headbutts did concuss Tyson to slow him down more (headbutts are far worse than punches) and make him less competitive.

You're right, and in round 5, Tyson really took it Holyfield, slowing him down with shots to the body. I imagine a 91' version of Tyson could do that for an entire fight, but he'd definately need his A' game.

[Fedor Em]

Holy probally beats Tyson anytime after 1989

[DamonD]

Tyson just didn't employ enough strategy to be able to beat Holyfield. But who knows? He seemed to use a greater variety of punches in 1991 including using the right hand more (see Ruddock fights). Obviously Holy is an incomparably superior fighter to Ruddock but Tyson using the right hand more is a great sign for him. After prison, Tyson mostly overused the loopy left - whenever he called upon his right hand (Holyfield, Golota, Botha, etc) it served him well. Holy is the more reliable on so I pick Holy but I'm not putting money on it.
True, especially about the loopy left.

I think the pluses for Tyson in '91 would be that physically he was a more capable fighter than '96, while Holyfield was lighter on muscle and probably would be fighting more balls-to-the-wall than smart as he did in '96. I think it took the Bowe loss for Holy to really strategize more in there.

The minuses are the obvious - Holyfield's fervent belief in being able to beat Tyson ran through his whole career, so he'd train and fight like a demon always against Mike. Plus he'd also be younger, and quicker with his reactions and busier with his workrate, along with his usual merits of chin, stamina and combinations.

Definitely a competative fight, but I do think in '91 I would've been backing Holyfield to get the win on points.

[TIGEREDGE]

I think that Holyfield always beats Tyson.

he always beats the post prison tyson yes. but in 1991, i think it was a 50-50 fight. no way i see holyfield stopping a top condition tyson. tyson could only be stoped when he was out of shape (or outclassed like against lewis in his twilight years)

If holyfiled haD of thought tyson like he did with bowe first time around, I see tyson winning

80's tyson would of been too much holy but MIKE IN A MILLION YEARS WOULD NEVER HAVE ANNIHALTED EVANDER VERY EARLY. ITS A MYTH THAT A PRIME MIKE WOULD KO'D HOLY WITHIN 5 ROUNDS. BOLLOCKS
IT WOULD OF TOOK A SUPREME EFFORT FROM A PRIME TYSON TO BEAT EVANDER. I SAY TYSON LATE OR ON POINTS

EVANDER WOULD OF GIVEN ANY HEAVYWEIGHHT IN HISTORY PROBLEMS

[streetsaresafer]

Voting is incredibly close here - Holyfield up by just 1 - 32-31
On the classic forum vote is within 1 vote as well - Holy up 15-14
Seems as though people see this as a pick em fight

[sues2nd]

Exactly. I know this will drive the Tyson fanatics crazy, but he beats the 80s Tyson too. Tyson NEVER faced anyone as good as Evander in his peak years, who would stand up to him and not be intimidated.

:happy

[surreal deal]

Agreed
yep.

[TIGEREDGE]

Voting is incredibly close here - Holyfield up by just 1 - 32-31
On the classic forum vote is within 1 vote as well - Holy up 15-14
Seems as though people see this as a pick em fight

DEFO A PICK EM

[ironchamp]

Tyson just didn't employ enough strategy to be able to beat Holyfield. But who knows? He seemed to use a greater variety of punches in 1991 including using the right hand more (see Ruddock fights). Obviously Holy is an incomparably superior fighter to Ruddock but Tyson using the right hand more is a great sign for him. After prison, Tyson mostly overused the loopy left - whenever he called upon his right hand (Holyfield, Golota, Botha, etc) it served him well. Holy is the more reliable on so I pick Holy but I'm not putting money on it.

I personally think it took the Riddick Bowe fights for Holyfield to strategize like he did in 1996. In 1991 you had a Tyson that was more active, younger and hungry to regain his titles. In 1996 he had that loopey left, not enough of a right hand and not enough of a body attack and ring rust that was never shaken off.

[the_churn]

Probably Tyson. Prison absolutely ruined Iron Mike. Flabby Buster Mathis and non Hurricane Peter McNeely backed him up in comeback fights - for a little while. No one ever did that to him pre-prison.

Truer words were never spoken. I recall watching the McNeely fight and thinking that Tyson was not the same man. Ultimately it ended bad for Pete, but he was able to move Tyson in a way that a tomato can never would have before prison.

[Alo2006]

Prime for prime, Tyson wins.

[Silver]

only version of tyson that can beat holyfield is 87-88 version and even then it would have been diffcult but at least tyson wasnt a headhunter then.

[SonnyL]

I would put my money on Tyson in '91. He needed that loss to Buster Douglas to bring him back down to reality. He was very dangerous and motivated after that loss. He looked very impressive going 19 hard rounds in those two fights with Razor Ruddock. I cant see Holyfield beatin him.

[Sister Sledge]

Any fighter who could tie Tyson up and take his punches could give Tyson trouble. Even a prime Tyson had trouble with clinchers. Holyfield is a fighter who tried to win at all costs and would not let Tyson bully and intimidate him. Mike could never beat Holy.

[LennoxGOAT]

I can't believe people are actually picking Tyson to win....

Any version of Tyson does not beat Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, or Foreman.

[lion]

I can't believe people are actually picking Tyson to win....

Any version of Tyson does not beat Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe, or Foreman.i really can't see anyone of those above beat a "prime" mike! he ko's them all

[Musashi]

Mike didn't fight anyone as good as Evander in the '80's. He wouldn't have been prepared for someone like Holyfield.

Evander understood that the mental aspect of fighting is as important as the physical. He understood exactly how to demoralize Mike. Evander's toughness, ring intelligence, skill, and enormous self-belief would be too much for ANY version of Tyson. Evander would stand up to Mike, clinch, headbutt, and bully Mike every time. Whether by KO or decision, Mike just didn't have enough mental fortitude to beat the likes of Holyfield.

[streetsaresafer]

Interesting Tyson's up now by 9 votes on this forum
But on the Classic Forum Holy is up 6 votes
Either way it is close

[ironchamp]

Mike didn't fight anyone as good as Evander in the '80's. He wouldn't have been prepared for someone like Holyfield.

Evander understood that the mental aspect of fighting is as important as the physical. He understood exactly how to demoralize Mike. Evander's toughness, ring intelligence, skill, and enormous self-belief would be too much for ANY version of Tyson. Evander would stand up to Mike, clinch, headbutt, and bully Mike every time. Whether by KO or decision, Mike just didn't have enough mental fortitude to beat the likes of Holyfield.

In 1991 Evander never fought any heavyweight as good as Tyson. In 1991 Tyson's mental toughness was never questioned and rightfully so.

Evander loses showing a good account of himself.

[BobDigi5060]

Tyson would have a better shot at Holy but does that mean Holy would be any less of a fighter back then? I doubt it. Holyfield would be just as good if not better to some.

Prime for Prime, young or old, I take Holy over Iron Mike 5 times outta 8.

[hobgoblin]

Pete, but he was able to move Tyson in a way that a tomato can never would have before prison.

Tyson offered 0 resistance in clinches AND when getting moved around for almost all of his fights. He was very easy to clinch and during the clinch he did nothing but wait for the ref to break them up. The only exception I recall is when he pushed around Ruddock. As to why Tyson ALLOWED all this? I don't know. It isn't that McNeeley was stronger than him and forcefully moved him (and Holy was probably slightly stronger in the fight where he moved the PASSIVE Tyson).

[hobgoblin]

Tyson would have a better shot at Holy but does that mean Holy would be any less of a fighter back then? I doubt it. Holyfield would be just as good if not better to some.

Prime for Prime, young or old, I take Holy over Iron Mike 5 times outta 8.

I think that's a fair post. Tyson just doesn't have the consistent strategy to break down Holyfield like he needs to.

[dave82]

I agree with BobDigi5060, Tyson did not have the strategy to take down Holy. He did possess awesome skill and power (mind you Holy did take some big shots) however needed more than just that. Holy was always the more intelligent fighter as result I can't see any version of Tyson defeating him

[Silver]

I agree with BobDigi5060, Tyson did not have the strategy to take down Holy. He did possess awesome skill and power (mind you Holy did take some big shots) however needed more than just that. Holy was always the more intelligent fighter as result I can't see any version of Tyson defeating himyou said, tyson is the bigger puncher and more naturally talented but holyfield is simply smarter and physical enough to deal with tyson.

[papaspank]

Holyfield owned his ass the day Tyson was born. Prime vs Prime, it would of been a hell of fight with the same results. What's funny is the poll has Tyson up, which tells you how sad a lot of the posters and the people who voted are.

[streetsaresafer]

bump

[dave82]

Holyfield owned his ass the day Tyson was born. Prime vs Prime, it would of been a hell of fight with the same results. What's funny is the poll has Tyson up, which tells you how sad a lot of the posters and the people who voted are.

Agreed. I feel Hoyfield is the more intelligent/stronger fighter and thats why i think he beats Tyson everytime. Overall strength goes to Hoyfield, as he was able to effectively tie up tyson everytime he tried to mount an attack. :good 1991 would be no different to there 96 clash

[divac]

The Bert Cooper argument is silly.
Holyfield showed Cooper no respect and got caught coming in. Holyfield wasn't even employing lateral movement against Cooper, he was treated the guy with no respect and trying to get him out of there early. Cooper was a good puncher.
The argument is about as good as the Cassius Caly-Henry Cooper-Sonny Liston one. If Cooper can deck Clay with a left hook then Liston would pulverize him. No.

Holyfield had hard fights with Alex Stewart, who Tyson spanked in one, so Tyson must beat Holyfield ..... another flawed argument. Tyson was a fast starter and a puncher. Styles make fights.

Its just that simple. Anyone that does'nt understand Unforgiven's outstanding post, just does'nt have a clue about what the sport of boxing is all about.

Exactly friend, styles make fights!:good

[divac]

I would put my money on Tyson in '91. He needed that loss to Buster Douglas to bring him back down to reality. He was very dangerous and motivated after that loss. He looked very impressive going 19 hard rounds in those two fights with Razor Ruddock. I cant see Holyfield beatin him.

Funny how different people see things totally different.

As I was watching Tyson's fights with Ruddock, my thinking was that if a one armed predictable fighter like Ruddock is giving Tyson all he can handle, a multifaceted strong willed fighter like Holyfield would embarrass him.

Funny how those fights impressed you, and I could'nt believe that Tyson was getting hit by the same telegraphed smash by Ruddock.

[ironchamp]

Funny how different people see things totally different.

As I was watching Tyson's fights with Ruddock, my thinking was that if a one armed predictable fighter like Ruddock is giving Tyson all he can handle, a multifaceted strong willed fighter like Holyfield would embarrass him.

Funny how those fights impressed you, and I could'nt believe that Tyson was getting hit by the same telegraphed smash by Ruddock.

The fight was impressive to the extent that it showcased Tyson's durability and ability to fight back when faced with resistance.

How he fought Ruddock is not how he would have fought Holyfield. Just like how Holyfield faced Cooper is not the same as how he would have faced Tyson.

[lefthook31]

I would give Holyfield more of a chance in 91 than 88, but I still think at that point even in Evanders career, he looked to mix it up more than fight smart. Tyson would have obliged him, and the speed of Tyson would have made a real difference in the fight.
Think about their fight in 96, Holyfields team which was not the same team he had in 91, devised a gameplan to fight Tyson by making him move back and hold him on the inside. Holyfield was so gassed in the latter parts of that fight, and this was against a Tyson who was not in the same fighting condition and punch output as the Tyson of 91.
Holyfield still might have been able to pull it out, but it would have been a far more exciting fight than Tyson Holy 96.

[Loufatski]

I think that Holyfield always beats Tyson.

Exactly, Holy found Mike's number.

[streetsaresafer]

I don't necessarily buy into the notion that Holyfield 'warred' more in the early 90s. Yeah he warred with Cooper but that was because he wanted to finish him early and he didn't respect Cooper enough at the time. Other than Cooper, only Stewart the 1st time and Dokes were fights where I'd say he 'warred'.

He looked great in his first two fights against Tillis and Pinklon Thomas - in neither one did he take any substantial amount of punishment. He blasted Rodrigues and McDonagh out of there relatively quickly. The Holmes fight is an outlier because Holyfield suffered a bad cut halfway through the fight and was careful the rest of the way (although he didn't take much punishment there either).

Most importantly, the late 80s, early 90s Holyfield did show an ability to box and execute a gameplan. He did it against Douglas, and he did it again against Foreman. Against Douglas he boxed beautifully and used his jab, and patiently waited for his counter right hand. And against Foreman in 91 - Holyfield boxed Foreman fairly brilliantly I thought (his most underrated performance in my opinion) - He used his feet, jabbed, landed combinations, and won 9 of the 12 rounds decisively.

So I don't agree with the notion that as soon as Holyfield would get hit by Tyson that he'd revert and turn it into a war. Holyfield didn't need anyone to tell him that Mike Tyson was the most devastating heavyweight in the world at the time (maybe ever in his prime). He most certainly would have had a gameplan and not just needlessly warred with Tyson. Although his granite chin and massive willpower certainly could have allowed him to handle Tyson's shots.

But I do agree that the fight in 91 would have been more exciting - primarily because Tyson was better then - could go 12 hard rounds, attacked the body much more in 91, and would have been more motivated and focused taking on an unbeaten Holyfield. Holyfield would have been better too, he would have used his feet more instead of clinches to contain Tyson, and he threw a lot more punches in 91.

In either case, it would have been a great fight and I damn Elijiah Tillery to this day for injuring Tyson's ribs - thus preventing the boxing public from knowing how that fight would have turned out.

[lefthook31]

I don't necessarily buy into the notion that Holyfield 'warred' more in the early 90s. Yeah he warred with Cooper but that was because he wanted to finish him early and he didn't respect Cooper enough at the time. Other than Cooper, only Stewart the 1st time and Dokes were fights where I'd say he 'warred'.

He looked great in his first two fights against Tillis and Pinklon Thomas - in neither one did he take any substantial amount of punishment. He blasted Rodrigues and McDonagh out of there relatively quickly. The Holmes fight is an outlier because Holyfield suffered a bad cut halfway through the fight and was careful the rest of the way (although he didn't take much punishment there either).

Most importantly, the late 80s, early 90s Holyfield did show an ability to box and execute a gameplan. He did it against Douglas, and he did it again against Foreman. Against Douglas he boxed beautifully and used his jab, and patiently waited for his counter right hand. And against Foreman in 91 - Holyfield boxed Foreman fairly brilliantly I thought (his most underrated performance in my opinion) - He used his feet, jabbed, landed combinations, and won 9 of the 12 rounds decisively.

So I don't agree with the notion that as soon as Holyfield would get hit by Tyson that he'd revert and turn it into a war. Holyfield didn't need anyone to tell him that Mike Tyson was the most devastating heavyweight in the world at the time (maybe ever in his prime). He most certainly would have had a gameplan and not just needlessly warred with Tyson. Although his granite chin and massive willpower certainly could have allowed him to handle Tyson's shots.

But I do agree that the fight in 91 would have been more exciting - primarily because Tyson was better then - could go 12 hard rounds, attacked the body much more in 91, and would have been more motivated and focused taking on an unbeaten Holyfield. Holyfield would have been better too, he would have used his feet more instead of clinches to contain Tyson, and he threw a lot more punches in 91.

In either case, it would have been a great fight and I damn Elijiah Tillery to this day for injuring Tyson's ribs - thus preventing the boxing public from knowing how that fight would have turned out.

Holyfield was a hard head, and didnt listen to his corner. He was a beautiful boxer when he actually did it, but he loved going toe to toe. He did it against Foreman and Bowe as well, so what makes you think he would all of sudden turn ino a controlled boxer against Tyson who loved to drag his opponents into a slugfest?

[streetsaresafer]

He would box Tyson more because he would have respected Mike's power. You would think if there was one fight in Holyfield's whole career where it might behoove him to box more that it would be Tyson. Don't you think Holyfield would realize that? I believe they asked Holyfield after the Bert Cooper fight about Tyson and he said he wouldn't have fought Tyson the way he fought Cooper. I tend to believe him.

On the other hand, even when they would slug it out, I think Holyfield had the chin and willpower to avoid getting KO'd. Remember, Tyson called Holyfield the best counter puncher he had seen. Tyson was fairly open to getting hit when he would come in so I think Holyfield would take advantage. Also, a prime Holyfield would have had even more opportunities to counter given he was able to throw 5, 6 punch combos the whole round in 91 (where as in 96 he had to pace himself more).

I think Tyson would have more opportunities to connect on Holyfield, but so would Holy on Mike. Both were better in 91 than in 96.

I could see Tyson winning no question, but I still favor Holyfield by 12th round TKO if I was betting on the fight.

[streetsaresafer]

Tie voting here, holyfield ahead by a few on the classic forum

My top 3 missed heavyweight fights of all time that I wish would have happened

1. 1991 - Tyson-Holyfield
2. 1993 - Bowe-Lewis
3. 1977-78 - Foreman-Holmes

[streetsaresafer]

Tie vote here
Holyfield ahead on the classic forum by 8 votes

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that had this fight come off in 91 like it was supposed to, both Tyson and Holyfield's stock would be much higher.

If Holyfield wins, he would have been thought of as a legitimate HW and great fighter much sooner. It also would have legitimzed the division more so (assuming Tyson still goes to prison in 92). Bowe would be elevated as well, beating Holyfield in 92, who had just beaten Tyson in 91.

If Tyson wins, his stock would be much higher. The win over a prime Holyfield would unquestionably be the best win of his career. Holyfield would probably be Mike's best, most enteraining fight to date (other than Douglas), and thus even in defeat Holyfield's stock would be elevated. Holyfield would not have slinked away with a loss to Tyson in 91, he showed too much resiliency in his career. He still would have been a major player with in the HW division following the loss to Tyson.

Both guys stock would rise with this fight