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

Yet better prepared, mentally and physically, than in 96.

 

Which fights are you comparing?

 

Tyson's 91 form compared to his 96 form. Both Ruddock fights actually. Obviously better prepared in their first go but and mentally fit in the re. Unlike his post prison stint of less than 8 total rounds of being untested. From June 29th, 1991 to November 8, 1996...Tyson had only gone 7 plus rounds total. That's a span of over 5 years averaging 1.4 rounds a year.

 

You make excellent points, I might add. But Rski has covered all the bases with that. Tyson just aint the same.

Here's a historical look at a professional fighter's timeline:

Green. Pre-prime. Prime. Peak.

This content is protected

.

This content is protected

. Shop worn. Washed up. Shot to shat.

Tyson was

This content is protected

in 1991. Tyson was

This content is protected

in 96.

 

What are we to make of Holyfield's prime? 1991? 1993? 1996? 1997?

 

I tend to agree that Tyson would have to be at his very best to stand a chance and be able to quell Holyfield's iron will. what I would say though is that in reality Holyfield was in better form than Tyson in 96 imo, the evidence shows that he had a career resurgence, so he wasn't completely shot at that time as people thought. everyone just went along with that story but the reality was Holyflied was live that night and a few fights after Tyson. No not at his best but in pretty good form. Whereas Tyson post prison showed he was no where near what he was before, his career basically turning into a circus.

 

Yes, Holyfield filled in, fully developed into a true heavyweight around this time. His muscles popping out of his skin, the shaven dome, more power, the more patient approach, a slower pace and work rate. He adapted better with age than Tyson ever did.

Like you I'm on the fence for the 1991 outcome. Holyfield's gone on record saying that fight would've been far different than their actual go. I feel Tyson wanted the title back so bad that he was thisclose to leaving Don King and even took less money to get a crack at regaining HIS belts. He was determined.

 

yeah Holyfield definitely surprised everyone, that first fight with Tyson was shocking, the way he was dishing out punishment and not getting hurt himself. I dotn know if I'd go as far to say he was coming back better than before but he definitely had a career resurgence there. He adapted better than Tyson to getting old but I guess most did, I really don't think Mike was going to do well out of his 20s with his style, even late 20s.

I do give Tyson a chance in the 91 fight for the reasons I stated before, he was making a pretty decent comeback really. I think people underrate that comeback a lot because of the myth after Doulgas he was done etc, but he came back strong until prison finished him. I really dont think the Douglas loss effected him as badly as some think.

 

There's an HBO in studio interview a week after the Tyson-Douglas fight where Larry Merchant has both Tyson and Buster analyzing the historic upset. You can see Tyson's body language, like he was itching for the rematch to happen sooner than later, because he knew he messed up and didn't take the fight seriously. He even says he knows why he lost and confidently tells everyone he'll regain the title within 3 months.

On the flip side, Buster had this guilty look. An almost low self esteem, quiet and sullen demeanor. Like he knew he caught lightning in a bottle and battled Tyson at the most opportune time.

Here's the video.

This content is protected

 

Hahahahaha you do spout some bull****, Douglas had just sparked Tyson out. He would have done it again in the studio and would have had a great chance of doing it again in a rematch.

 

and I don't agree with that system as I stated. Nor is it exactly historical and down to an exact science.

 

I'm not sure about that .... After Tyson rematch, Holyfield looked pretty dreadful in every fight really. The only real exception being the Lewis rematch where he boxed clever but wasn't able to do enough. The Moorer rematch he was powerful but he looked old and unwell at times (against a past-prime overweight Moorer too), then a 12-round dull decision with Vaughn Bean, a terrible first fight with Lewis, then the Ruiz trllogy.
Most people thought Tyson looked "okay" against Golota and Savarese while that lasted, around the same time Holyfield was struggling with Ruiz.

I think Holyfield was severely past his best from 1994 onwards, quite clearly, but the opposition was getting pretty poor.

 

I'd have to watch those fights again, I was under the impression he beat Moorer down impressively, had that weird episode with Lewis in their first fight but then fought very well in the rematch. Bear in mind this was Lennox Lewis, the man at that moment and Holyfield had him hurt, he was well in the fight. Not saying he was near his best but he was doing far better than Tyson by that point.

Mike was done, he was a complete headcase that couldn't go a few rounds without something bizarre happening. I didnt feel he looked very good at all really, he was like an actor trying to remember his lines, trying to do the stuff he used to but falling well short. He needed to adapt as he got older but that probably wasn't even possible with his size and reach. He needed every ounce of his youth and reflexes.

 

Yeah, well I think the difference boils down to mentality, coolness under pressure and peace of mind. Again, I believe Holyfield was always a degree better than Tyson in all those areas, so if we can take anything from all this of relevance to a 1991 match or a prime-for-prime match (and it's doubtful), I'd imagine Evander always holds the edge. Maybe not by much.

 

Holyfield kicks Tyson's ass anytime.