Prime for Prime-Evander Holyfield vs Mike Tyson

for me, I just think Holyfield is the perfect fighter to out slug Tyson and win. but this one would be much closer. honestly, I'm not sure if Tyson would win. Tyson wasn't completely shot, although he didn't have as much head movement or speed as he did in his "prime".

 

When they fought neither was at their best. Tyson wasnt prepared to fight a long grueling fight and Holyfield was so exhausted in the later rounds. He plopped himself down on the stool and looked completely spent. Had it not been for Brooks inspirational words Holy might have packed it in. Tyson was probably a 1/3 of himself in my opinion and took pretty much everything Evander had and still was standing at the end of the fight. He was as much exhausted as he was beaten that night.
I dont think Evander in his "prime" would have been big enough or strong enough to deal with a prime Mike Tyson. Tyson was faster, had better defense, and was a serious combination powerpuncher. Tyson mid round stoppage.

 

Hmmmm................Either Tyson due to Holyfields heart getting him hit too often, or Evanders iron chin gets him through the rough early going and he wins on points

 

One way that the 1996 Holyfield was better than his prime version was that he could punch with more authority. He'd slowed up obvioulsy,but retained more of his prime than did Tyson at this point. Prime for prime,I'd say Tyson would win. Probably by about the midway mark.

 

I think Holyfield was a startingly accurate puncher throughout his career

 

My money went on Evander both times they actually fought and, prime for prime, my money would still go on Holyfield. It would have been a great fight!

 

...Is "Evander Holyfidld" any relation to Evan Fields?

 

I meant power punching. He hit more solidly.

 

Holyfield, this is not about popularity.

 

Holyfield.
Any time.
He simply had the beating of Tyson, and I think he was simply a superior fighter, more adaptable, and better at handling pressure.
Tyson couldn't do a thing going backwards, and at some point, and soon, Holyfield will back him up and keep hitting. Tyson was ordinary when he was taken out of his own game. Holyfield could look flawed at times, and seemingly struggle unnecessarily, but was always in position to turn the tables and figure the other guy out.
Holyfield was better.

I think Tyson's horribly overrated. But I know that's a minority opinion around here. I was never 100% sold on him being great, even though I have fond memories of his fights going back to '86. He was very well managed and marketed from very early on. He lived up to it for a short while, but the bubble was quickly burst. I dont go along with the story that he "could have" and "would have" if only he'd kept disciplined outside the ring. He was always destined to lose in a thorough way - whether it Douglas or Holyfield to do it first, he was such a fighter that if someone has his number on a given night it looks stylistically one-sided and presents an eternal blueprint. Tyson only had one game.

 

sorry, i typed this on my ipod touch... atsch

 

If only he had gotten a rematch with Douglas or fought Holyfield before going to the clink.

 

Well, that's where we differ.
I think his standing is preserved somewhat by the fact that he didn't. ('cos I think he would have lost, badly).

 

I agree with you here.

Tyson vs Holyfield prime vs prime would have been an absolutely brilliant spectacle, but I'd put my money on Evander every time.

I talk boxing with my friends a lot who are the same age or thereabouts as me (24) and they refuse to believe that any fighter would beat a prime Tyson.

Does my head in!

 

:dead

Possibly, a concern of mine too.

He wasn't all these things in 96? Faster, better puncher?