I’m positive Holyfield would’ve beaten Tyson in 91

Nobody thought Holy would have a chance when they actually did fight, either. When he had looked bad against Czyz and Tyson had gone through Bruno.

 

Tyson beat Tillis.Try to respect the facts at least !

 

On the rematch Holyfield wasn't better than Tyson.In third round Holy was very defensive but lot of Tyson haters can't accept
the reality.

 

So did Carl Williams. So did Frank Bruno. So did Larry Holmes. So did just about anyone who called Mike out at that time.

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

 

How did those fights take their toll? I can tell his first bout with Moorer was a subpar performance, and I chalk it up to too much roid abuse. Holyfield was huge and could barely move in there. He looked far better against Ray Mercer a year later.

Also, future fights suggest otherwise. Incredible how Holyfield was able to capture another belt and fight 2 close bouts with Lennox Lewis and yet considered practically washed up!

Hilarious, really.

 

I'd favour Holyfield. Even tho Douglas was in disgusting shape Holyfield looked razor sharp.

 

Complete rubbish. Why is this forum moving backwards? No wonder so many posters have left this place in the dust.

 

You're right, he was far more roided up which slowed him down, so he adapted. Simple.

 

And it's only true to you because you're a Tyson hater. Check mate son.

 

I'll put it this way....Tyson beats Holyfield with hair, Holyfield without hair may be another story. I think the 96 version of Holyfield was the best version of Holyfield for any version of Tyson. He had the experience of several wars but was bigger and stronger and hit a tad bit harder than he did in 1991.