1991 - Holyfield/Tyson - Who Wins?

November 8th, 1991 - Holyfield/Tyson

Greetings, just my 3rd post here at ESB but I have been a frequent lurker. I posted this already on the classic forum but I thought I'd post it here as well to give people a chance to respond.

Did we miss out on an all time classic fight that would have really settled the debate as to who was the greater heavyweight? What if Iron Mike Tyson did not get that rib injury three weeks before the fight and the fight actually happened? Who wins and why? And a side question - was Tyson in his prime in 1991?

Note - The reason why I did not ask about 88 Tyson v. Holyfield in an ideal prime v. prime matchup is that the fight could not have happened realistically. Rooney was gone after the Spinx fight and Holy was just getting started at heavy with Tillis. Earliest they could have met was 89 after Holy's win over Dokes.

Here's my breakdown of their bout in 91 -

Evander Holyfield Analysis
Remember that Holyfield was unquestionably in the prime of his career, he would have been 29 years old at the time of the fight, coming off what I consider his most underrated performance with his victory against Foreman. Holyfield was undefeated, having already taken out Michael Dokes and Buster Douglas in impressive fashion. He was fighting at what I consider his ideal weight - 208 lbs. Plus, besides the money at heavyweight, the main reason Holy jumped to heavyweight was he wanted a shot at Tyson. He thought he could beat Tyson and we learned obviously in 96' that he could pull off such a feat.

Also, Holyfield was unquestionably better in 1991 than he was in 1996. His workrate was better (look at how many punches he was throwing per round against guys like Dokes and Foreman), he used his jab more, used his footwork more, and was a lighter fighter - 208 lbs typically as opposed to the 218 lbs he was for the 96' fight.

Now some have said that the weakness of the early 90s Holyfield was that he was more prone to be drawn into a war (Bert Cooper, first Bowe fight) and was not the wily experienced veteran he was in 1996. I do not agree with this because Holyfield himself said after the Bert Cooper fight that the way he fought Cooper was not the way he would have fought Tyson. Holy was certainly smart enough to realize that the one guy he might not want to try to outslug was Tyson so I actually would have expected that you'd see a similar gameplan to his fight in 1996. I think the main difference is that he would have clinched less and used his feet more.

As a side note, many ask - when was Holyfield's prime at heavyweight? I consider Holyfield's prime at heavyweight to be from 1989-1993 (Dokes fight through Bowe II). Age wise these years were ideal - he was 26 at the time of the Dokes fight and was 31 at the time of the 2nd Bowe fight. He was very good/great in nearly every fight and had only the single loss to Bowe in a classic. After Bowe II, he became much more inconsistent, looking iffy in Moorer I, Bowe III, and Czyz, while looking formidable against Mercer and Tyson. Also he was carrying more weight (typically around 215 lbs as opposed to 208 lbs, and did not have as good a workrate, and had been through that many more tough fights. Thus Holyfield was unquestionably in his prime in 1991, where as the Holy of 96 while not prime, was still formidable. Tyson I consider still formidable in 96, but certainly not prime (86-88).

Mike Tyson Analysis -
Was he still prime in 1991? Was the 1991 Tyson different from the 1996 Tyson?
The Tyson of 1991 was in my mind superior to the Tyson of 96'. For one, Tyson was a full five years younger (25 as opposed to 30) and many have said that fighters like Tyson tend to peak sooner than a big fighter like say Lennox Lewis. Also Tyson was coming off two impressive hard hitting wins against Razor Ruddock, who by most accounts was the most dangerous puncher at the time not named Tyson. In terms of boxing, Tyson still attacked the body in 1991 (watch the Rudduck fights) where as I saw very little in the way of a body attack from a post prison Tyson. In 91, he still had all of his speed and reflexes, and still threw good combinations, though he was no doubt more of a headhunter than he was from 1986-88.

Now let's consider the motivation factor. In 1996, Tyson came into the fight at 222 lbs, at least 4 lbs heavier than Tyson's best weight (216-218 lbs) and was overconfident as well, seeing as though most thought Holy was shot at the time (see Bowe III and Czyz). Now in 1991, Tyson had all the motivation in the world to get in top shape. For one, he would have been fighting to win back the undisputed heavyweight championship of the world, so the stage could not be bigger. In addition, Tyson would have had a healthy respect for Holyfield as an opponent knowing him to be tough from their Olympic days in 84.' So it is reasonable to expect that Tyson would have taken the fight very seriously and come in to the fight in top shape.

The question then becomes, while no one would question Holyfield was in his prime in 1991, was Tyson still in his prime? This is a tougher question than I initially thought. Nearly everyone seems to agree that Tyson's prime was 1986-1988, culminating with his absolute peak performance against Michael Spinks in 1988. Unfortunately we know that soon after Kevin Rooney was gone, Don King was in control, and Tyson seemed to lose interest in Cus D'Amato's peek a boo defensive style and seemed content to just be a knockout artist.

This is actually why I think the Tyson of November 1991 was the best Tyson possible post Rooney. Think about it for a second, if Holyfield and Tyson fight in 89 or 90 while Tyson is unbeaten, I actually think that would have been worse than having the fight in 91 because Tyson was ripe for a fall in 89-90. He was way overconfident, had a horrible corner (see the Douglas fight), and was dealing with the divorce with Robin Givens.

So while an undefeated Tyson against an undefeated Holyfield sounds better on paper, I actually think the fight in 1991 is a better fight because it was after Douglas. The Douglas fight showed Tyson that he was not invincible. Now some will say, Tyson was never the same after Douglas (Tyson himself said his career ended in 1990), but I disagree, if he had any psychological doubts about his ability as a fighter, it would have shown up in the Ruddock fights. If he had lost confidence in himself, Rudduck would have knocked him out. So to me, Tyson still had it in 1991 and in fact was better than he was post Rooney up to Douglas (89-90) because he had to get hungry again to win his title back.

My point is this - while I will concede Tyson was not in his prime in 1991 - no Kevin Rooney, not enough interest in using the bob and weave peek-a-boo defensive scheme Cus taught him - the Tyson of 1991 was the best Tyson post prime, better than 89-90, and better than 96. Physically he still had all the tools, still had that devastating combination of lethal speed and power. He still punched to the body and threw combinations. Again I think where he had slipped was defensively, he did not bob and weave nearly as much, but there was nothing preventing him from tightening up his defense.

My prediction - Holyfield wins via 12th round TKO
All time classic fight, with Tyson winning most of the early rounds and Holyfield winning most of the later rounds before finally stopping him in the 12th. Honestly the difference to me is Holy's chin. Holy has an all time great chin, thus he would likely survive the first 5 rounds from Tyson because of that. Also remember that Tyson has said that Holyfield was the best counter puncher he's seen, so that has to be factored in as well. Handspeed wise Holy was almost as fast as Tyson as well.

I see the fight being somewhat similar to the 1996 fight but much closer and action packed - biggest reason being Tyson was better in 1991.

While their fight in 1996 was a very good fight it was not an all time classic because there were too many clinches and Tyson was not effective enough to make it a nailbiter. In 1991, I think there would have been significantly less clinches because Holy would have used his feet more, and he would not need to get some of the bits of rest he was able to get each time he clinched Tyson. While he would still clinch Tyson some to frustrate him and not let him get off on the inside, overall the number of clinches would have been significantly lower.

I think Tyson certainly could have won in 1991 but I still would pick Holyfield because he was the better boxer, had the chin to withstand the Tyson onslaught in the early rounds, and would have been stronger late to pull out the victory. I put the odds that 70-30 in favor of a Holyfield win.

One last thing, Al Bernstein came to my undergraduate college a few years back and I asked him who he thought would have won Tyson/Holyfield in 1991. Al Bernstein said he thought Holyfield would still win, but that it would be closer. He said he thought Holyfield had Tyson's number.

As a 3rd time poster, and frequent lurker, I am curious as to how people think this fight would have turned out?