Yeah, that was pretty erroneous. Morrison did do a great job, though...the performance of his career. I'm giving credit even though I never liked TM, and laughed like hell when Mercer beat the tar out of him.
How did Holyfield "decide to avoid" Tyson? They signed to fight twice initially and Tyson pulled out twice lol. Then he signed to fight Tyson a third time when he was thought shot and whipped Tyson's behind. Then Evander was happy to sign a fourth time for the bite fight. He wasn't scared of or avoiding Tyson ever at any point in his career. Tyson fanboy logic is simply unfathomable for the non-nuthuggers. A confessed drug addict and abuser draws the line at the PED's that would allow him to take short cuts in training so he could party harder while maintaining his strength and fitness? Yeah sure.
Its a little telling that Holyfield's camp after winning the title from Douglas immediately decided to take a fight with George Foreman instead of Mike Tyson, a match up that was looming ahead. But here's an excerpt from Sports Illustrated detailing the scene: This content is protected
Great article, could have been written by Sangria. It's taken the leap of logic that a contracted fight that was willingly signed off of by both camps, which Tyson pulled out of through injury, has somehow turned into a Holyfield duck. As soon as I read that an unnamed Holyfield camp member supposedly told the journalist that he doubted that Evander could beat Mike, I saw this article for what it was...little more than a DKP public relations piece. It is such a dated article considering the opposition Holyfield would go onto meet subsequently, the fact Holyfield signed yet again shortly after to fight Tyson (who pulled again out due to the **** charges), the fact Holyfield when thought finished signed to fight Tyson a third time, and the fact Holyfield had the measure of Tyson when they finally did fight (when Evander had a hell of a lot more ring wear and tear than Tyson).
The article isn't dated, you're just not factoring in the context. Here's the thing, This wasn't a DKP puff piece, this was THE conventional wisdom at the time. I find it curious that people were willing to believe a phony article about Tyson being afraid of Foreman but this article which cites quotes and sources from both camps is less credible? If it felt overwhelmingly pro-Tyson its because he was still regarded as the best Heavyweight on the planet at the time the article was written. Keep in mind that Bowe and Lewis were both green and still up and coming at the time, and Tyson was an objectively accomplished Former Heavyweight Champion still in his prime who just came off 2 impressive wins over the feared Donovan 'Razor' Ruddock who was listed as the #2 Ranked Contender for all 3 sanctioning bodies. Meanwhile, Holyfield on the other hand had beaten an unmotivated Buster Douglas (for the titles that Tyson unified) and appeared to have struggled with a 41 year old George Foreman. So his hard ball negotiating tactics weren't seen a business move, rather it seemed like an attempt to duck Tyson as long as could get away with it. Dan Duva didn't expect that Tyson would go around Don King and tell him forget about the money and make the type of financial concessions that a star of his magnitude wouldn't ordinarily make. Tyson seemed far more relentless in his pursuit of Holyfield than the other way around. Evander only signed because he was boxed in and Mike called his bluff. Incidentally, roughly one month after the article was written, Holyfield fought against journeyman Bert Cooper (a replacement of a replacement) and was knocked down and hurt. He won, but everyone at the time thought the same thing, if he was in there with Tyson, he would have lost. After the Cooper fight, the article didn't feel dated. I will add this: Holyfield went into fight in 1996 as a huge underdog and presumably battle worn, I find THAT narrative to be dated.The fact was he was the sharper fighter who was battle tested whereas Tyson was the one with ring rust and inactivity.
Cracking up. One problem I have with the "Team Holyfield" statement is how Holy, who'd already been knocked out by Bowe and was already a very rich man at the time, still chose to fight Mike later. Why would he have been poorer, in his prime, and champ and refuse to fight Mike? That doesn't make any sense. He was certainly poorer then, and the victory would have looked awesome on his record. So, the assertion is that the older, non-prime, non-champ, already-beaten twice and into his decline, very rich Holy chose to fight Mike while the not-as-rich, younger, in his prime, unbeaten, champ chose not to? The whole statement smells bad, imo.
No excuses for Mike, (Holy had already been diagnosed with bad health years before the fight btw, and I don't see people bringing that up). Tyson's weakness were exposed during both fights, including his limited (though definite) supply of championship heart. Holy was obviously on his way to beating him again when Mike chose to go Golota and bite him. Is someone going to tell me something was wrong with Mike in the second fight, too? Oh wait I forgot: he'd already has his ass handed to him once and could see things orbiting that scenario again.
I've become convinced over time that George would probably have lost to Mike in the 80s, and I will always point to the Qawi fight as ample proof. Tyson was very much a greater fighter, a stronger fighter, and maybe even a faster fighter than Qawi at the time. All that said, I don't think Mike would have made it against the Holyfield George. George might have suffered a knockdown or two in what would have been the biggest puncher-fest in the sport at the time, but Mike couldn't have stopped him then. George had become far more adept and lost the rust by that time, and was a better fighter. Prime Mike vs 90s Foreman sees Mike getting whacked down again and again by the uppercut and right cross, ala Frazier...only Mike would have probably ended up knocked out cold after the second kd. Mike had heart, no question there. He didn't have the heart or punch or chin of Foreman in middle age, though. Just my opinion.
Hoyfield had had 3 fights in fight in 18 months following a 13 month layoff after losing to Moorer going into the first Tyson fight. He had a solid win over Mercer, gassed alarmingly and was stopped by Bowe and looked terrible against an overmatchd Bobby Czyz. Tyson had had 4 fights in 12 months going into this fight. He easily beat McNeely and Mathis in warm up fights, looked sharp in blowing out Bruno for the WBC title and beat Seldon (admittedly under farcical circumstances) quickly for the WBA title. Tyson was definately seen as the form fighter going in and in fact many were fearing for Evander's wellbeing pre-fight (Ring magazine for example did a big multi-page spread on the fight and tipped Tyson in 1). Evander was thought to be washed up and it was probably a cynical piece of match making from team Tyson, in getting a big name , a big KO on Tysons record with little risk for Mike. That plan didn't work out unfortunately for the Mikey fanatics though.
Mike and his people had reason to believe this was the time to strike; the problem was, no one realized Holy wasn't just ready to fight at a championship level at that time, but would remain that way right into the puzzling fights with Holy/Lewis awhile later.
Evander just made it look harder than it actually was and I think that's what clouding people's judgement about this fight. I can only imagine that if Tyson never fought Holmes or Alex Stewart, similar threads would pop up and claim that there is no way Tyson would've KO'd Holmes or obliterate Stewart out in 1 round. Some contrarians may even claim the Holmes that fought Holyfield would decision Tyson by taking him to the later rounds and "drowning him" and use the Mercer example as further evidence of his durability and savvy and use the Shavers example of why he could never be knocked out. The fundamental problem is rooted even in the way you describe how Foreman would actually beat Tyson if they met in the 90s. Invariably those who agree with your position, find a way to invoke 70s Foreman conflating the two when it's clear as day that the Young Foreman and Old Foreman were NOT the same fighter. Young Foreman would have never let Moorer walk him down for 9 rounds before trapping him into catching a sneaky right hand. He would have wasted Moorer in 2 rounds or less. IMHO he does the same with Holyfield. However, to beat Tyson, you needed to administer a long sustained beating while taking little punishment in return. Douglas pulled it off, Holyfield pulled it off and so did Lewis. They all used lateral movement and stayed away from Tyson effectively mitigating his offense. Foreman isn't going to stay away. He's gonna be right there in front of him and he will get hit. Flush. I still remember how Larry Merchant said something to the effect that "the myth of Foreman's power has been exposed" as a result of Moorer just walking him down recklessly. To me that suggests that Tyson would be the one coming forward and Foreman taking the back step and George would occasionally try to move Tyson back. He may land a crowd pleasing punch here and there but no won't where near enough to get the job done. For George the best case scenario is surviving the 12 rounds and losing a wide decision. But the likely scenario is Foreman getting stopped via TKO in 6-7 rounds after taking too many clean punches in succession while being behind in the fight.
Can we have a forum site all of it's own for Foreman threads. That way the rest of us can just get on by ?
90's tyson making foreman take a step back...? You need your own netflix comedy special. You've made at least 7 threads with foreman in the title and ive seen you reply to every foreman thread in the past several months. It seems you're the most eager to start such a forum.
90s Tyson...no. In fact, though I definitely see the 80s Foreman falling to both the 80s and 90s Mike, the George who gave such an inspired fight against Holy would have knocked Mike out early. I still am not convinced George ducked Mike, in fact I'm more convinced Mike knew George was all wrong for him. Put it this way: at one point Mike was out of prison and easily the biggest fight around was against Foreman ($$$$). Nothing will convince me George ducked that much money, not to mention the fact that if George saw the IM/Holy fight he probably would have been begging for a Mike match. This content is protected And yeah, this George thread has gone on awhile.
