Mike Tyson vs Evander Holyfield in 1991

Tyson looks a lot better in 1996 IMO AND Bruno is better then Ruddock. :deal
Tyson head-movement And combos look a lot better in 1996 , it simple.

 

:good

Sadly, some people have no regard for visible REALITY and prefer to just repeat baseless mythology... :roll:

 

How is is it baseless?

 

:roll: The post I responded to just showed how.

 

Why didn't you put up Tyson Mathis and Tyson McNeeley?
So after three years in the can and four rounds of boxing within 8 months,Tyson was right back to where he was in 91 because of how he performed against Bruno?

 

:thumbsup tyson look 95% of his BEST/PEAK in 1995/1996, same as he did after loss to Buster but before prision layoff years. only times he look better were 1986--1990 when he 100% PEAKED to teh max.

 

you are a Boxrec student but you know nothing about the backgrounds from tyson... realy nothing..

Tyson had his prime in 85-88 when he trained under Rooney..

for the Holyfield I fight Tyson trained 3 or 4 weeks and total underestimate Evander but oberrate his self.

A Tyson from 96 was still young but looks only for one punch Ko and was far poorer as he was in 88..

i bet you think you can beat a 96 tyson also like the old Foreman who demolished and outboxed from our softy Axel Schulz.

 

Holyfield would have beaten Tyson up in 1991.

Which is probably what Tyson thought, hence another sick-note cancellation of the fight.

 

Using a scared to death Frank Bruno with one foot in retirement is hardly an indicator as to where Tyson was in 1996 compared to 1991.

 

tyson by late stoppage he was battle hardened in 91 and was far tougher mentally he was never going to be the same after 4 years out of the ring .

 

-You know why. McNeeley was his first fight back and Mathis is a spoiler who makes everyone look bad for a few rounds. Bruno and Ruddock were both top 10 power guys of comparable approach, ability, and stature at the times of these fights.

If I wanted to be unfair I would have posted Tyson's god awful performance in Ruddock II and his promising start in Holyfield II as proof he was better in 96 but we know that would be bull****. But yes, overall Mike appeared to have picked up where he left off in 91. That is what my eyes tell me. Tyson of 86-88 is a different matter though, not that he didn't have the same strategic flaws and sporadic exeuction, but he was quicker and shaper overall and had a much better corner to carry him through rough spots.

 

Bruno was sitting on the highest ranking of his career, his only title, while coming off the best performances of his career..a hard fought decision over McCall, a blow out of Ferguson, and a tough loss to Lewis.

 

Well to our eyes Tyson probably looked the same in 2003 against Cliff Etienne as he did in 1986 against Marvis Frazier but that doesnt tell the whole story.

I also fail to see how Tyson's performance was "God awful" in Ruddock II? His defense was lacking but he still showed quite a bit of grit and fought pretty well for 12 rounds to win a pretty one sided decision.

Unfortunately boxing is not like riding a bike, thats the overiding point here. Don King had to juggle bringing Tyson back from a long layoff along with keeping him marketable, and that was very difficult, considering the neediness of Tyson.

I would also add that hiring a guy like Jay Bright to bring a fighter like Tyson back from a long layoff was not the smartest move either.

 

Bruno didnt look that great against Mcall.

 

i think holyfield had his number, thats all. there is a fighter out there for everyone, and holyfield was mike's kryptonite, he had studied him since the ams and knew his style, which he studied religiously for the inevitable super fight they would have. i think holy beats mike 10/10 because there is no way you get evander out of there with a lucky punch.