review of Tyson holyfield 1 and why tyson would have won in 1991(imo)

More past it in terms of what? If anything he lost some mobility and ability to use lateral movement for extended periods of time, and his workrate dropped somewhat. But at the same time he was stronger, hit harder and was more durable than before and was better suited to beating any version of tyson in 1996 than in 1991. In my opinion mike was the one who was more past it despite being younger because of his decline in boxing skills during prison. he may have still been close to his physical peak still but the absence of working in behind the jab, not using combinations, almost completely abandoning bodywork and his abandonment of defense and head movement, all made him a much worse fighter than he was before prison. He was worse at almost everything, lost his fighters instinct and ring IQ.
By the way in their actual meeting evander was not beating mike to the punch early, mike was getting off first, but being countered because he threw one bomb at a time. As the rounds went on mike started gassing and loading up on his shots, at which point evander started beating him to the punch.
I dont see this happening with the mike tyson that fought alex stewart and razor ruddock.
In 1991 evander holyfield did not hit plenty hard to stop tyson especially if mike is moving his head and getting hit less than in 1996. Before mike went to prison, holy struggled to hurt dokes who was then knocked out cold by ruddock(who's best shots mike took and then pointed to his chin to give him some more) he almost got knocked out by bert cooper, who even chinny michael moorer beat. Evander could not even knock down alex stewart who mike tyson absolutely killed. Compare that to the mid to late nineties where evander was knocking down ray mercer, beating the stuffing out of 245 pound rid**** bowe before inexplicably letting him off the hookand collapsing and then he used michael moorer as a ragdoll in 1997. So in my opinion evander only "acquired" enough power to hurt mike later(coupled with the fact that mikes attitude was no longer the same which allowed him to be hurt much easier)

 

Howfar are you willing to take this argument? Would a 70 year old evander still beat a 1991 tyson? Yes evander was the greater fighter and had an enormous heart, and sometimes the intangibles make the difference but imo the physical advantages are too much. in my book he is fighting an uphill battle against mike.

 

You bring up some good points, im not trying to devalue holyfield i am a big fan of his. I just dont think it is enough, but maybe i am buying too much into the "the only person who can beat tyson is tyson" statement. But consider that anyone mike hit flush got hurt bad, douglas got dropped hard when mike nailed him, lennox never got hit against tyson and holy managed to roll with tysons punches and not get hit solid for most of the fight. If cooper can get a shot in to holyfields chin and hurt him then i think so can tyson. I am not denying the possibility that evander could win but i dont think you should act like mike has 0 chance whatsoever to beat him. Anything can happen in the ring especially with heavyweights and especially with an ATG puncher and finisher like tyson. One thing i think everyone has to admit is that it would be a competitive war with both having their moments.

 

Guys please read the part in my original posts where i discuss how i think the momentum in their 1996 meeting changed, and tell me what you think