From a 1-10 scale how good was tyson in the second holyfield fight

LOL @ you...............if Holyfield was sooooooooooooo much better why did he hold and hold some more in the first fight until he got brave when Tyson was out gas due to rotting his best years in the pen and needed constant HEADBUTTS in BOTH fights to get another edge ?

You should sue your brain for nonsupport.............you would make a killing.

 

Head movement was there but inconsistent, Tyson had no patience going in the Holyfield rematch and looked full of excuses after the beating he suffered in the first round which he CLEARLY didn't expect. Let's face it, it was Holyfield rocking him in the first round and pushing him back when the entire world, including Tyson and his team, expected Tyson to send that kind of message in the first round. That raped whatever confidence Tyson had and he immediately picked on the headbutts to get out of it. Tyson was superb physically, he came in a very low weight looked 100% healthy and ready to go.

No he wasn't the Tyson post prison because that's impossible to bring back what has been lost in four years in a sport all about activity and dedication but Holyfield had A LOT to do with Tyson looking bad and lost in those two fights than Tyson being shot. If Holyfield was terrified he would have ended like Bruno, McNeely, Mathis Jr. and Seldon.

 

Holyfield's head butts were almost as good as Ward's.

 

After Buster it was all downhill.

 

At most, between 1-10, I'd give Tyson a four for the second Holyfield fight. Its hard to gauge as there was not a conclusive ending, just chaos!

Its ironic becasue Tyson was having his best round in the third before he bit Evander! He started throwing combinations in that round & they were landing. We all know Holyfield had a great chin, but still, he was shipping some shots!

After the headbutt which cut Tyson, when Mills Lane did not even speak to Holyfield, that's when I think Tyson made up his mind that he was going to react!

 

In the first fight I'd say 7 or 8 but so was Holyfield. The difference was that Holyfield rose to the occasion and Tyson thought Holyfield would be easy.

Tyson had no excuses in the rematch, I'd say he was about 8. I think he trained hard but Holyfield again frustrated him. Holyfield was about an 8 as well. As a result, Tyson just fell apart. I actually think Holyfield was better prepared in the first fight.

The rematch could have and should have been better than the first fight. I figured Tyson would be well prepared as well as Holyfield, but I also felt that Holyfield would come in a bit cocky, therefore making it a close fight. I picked Holyfield as the winner.

 

I think he was better prepared but he still fought with too much hesitation.

Tyson never regained his timing or second nature of movement and thats why a fighter like Holyfield was able to capitalize on it so easily.

Had Tyson faced Holyfield in 91 I think the fight would have been much different.

 

I would say just the opposite. Holyfield was a better boxer when he was younger. He boxed and moved more on his toes but still liked to mix it up and maybe a little more wrecklessly than he did as he got older.

The older Holyfield had him physically bigger more flat footed and more of a stationary counterpuncher who fought in spots using a lot of holding and wrestling inside.

I think overall Holyfield just became smarter with what he had but as a young man he was an excellent boxer puncher.

 

After Spinks is a better assessment.