Holyfield...Did he just have Tyson's number?

You have a point here...fans of his (and I count myself among them) do tend to go overboard sometimes.
But it is tempting sometimes to think about the Tyson that might have been if he didn't go off the rails.

 

The reason why there is so many question marks with Tyson was because of how good he was before going to prison. The level of competition didnt improve either. His life was also an open book in the media so everyone was watching him make all the wrong decisions, and ultimately flushing his career down the toilet.

 

Even pre-prison, he still wasn't without his flaws and he certainly wasn't unbeatable. There's nothing from any stage of his career to contradict the wealth of evidence that a prime Holyfield was always better than him, and no valid reason to question it.

 

But that would be asking him to fight a kind of heady, disciplined fight that he seldom (if ever) did, and certainly never against a fighter of a prime Holy's quality or the kind of pressure Holy would put him under.

Exactly.

Agreed.

 

I remember the 2 guys nobody wanted to fight during the early 90's were Tyson and "Razor" Ruddock. I think the 2 fights depreciated both their careers. Ruddock was a shadow of his former self after getting blasted by Tyson in the second fight. I think Holyfield was tremendous fighter and would have given Tyson quite a battle in 91', but I think Tyson would have taken Holyfield in 91. Holy definitely had Tyson's number when Tyson came out of prison. Tyson looked like a stationary target and nothing like the 80's Tyson though. Also, Tyson got winded after a couple of rounds, whereas he had no problem going 15 rounds in the 80's.

 

A lot of hypothetical situations come up because, well.....that's what a lot of historical boxing discussion is.

The very question of this thread "Did Holyfield have Tyson's number?" is another way of saying "Would Holyfield beat any version of Tyson?". So of course people are going to bring up the changes and up and downs of each fighter's career. I don't see anything wrong with that. Just because you hear a lot of the same reasons for Tyson over and over again shouldn't diminish the argument.

And I don't think anyone can argue Tyson depreciated farther (and most of it was his fault) than almost any other fighter in such a short amount of time.

 

This is the way I look at, and just like many of these situations, I try to keep it simple:

The question being asked is: Would Holyfield have always beaten Tyson?

I don't think anyone can argue the Tyson of the 80's was a much better fighter than the Tyson of '96. Holyfield wasn't peak either, but not nearly as far removed as Tyson. Holyfield fought great against Tyson, and continued to long after.

Based on that, I think there is enough there to say the fight has great potential to be much different, mostly in Tyson's favor.

And that's about as far as I can take it.

 

Thats correct. People just have a strong dislike of Tyson and thats understandable, but just like Lewis became better and more consistent fighter after hiring Emanuel Steward, the opposite happend for Tyson. Theres nothing speculative about it, the proof is in their respective careers, and it has nothing to do with Holyfield just being a better fighter. Holyfield would have always been a tough mathcup for Tyson, but Tyson would have been a much tougher fight for Holyfield when he still had a good amount of his skills still in tact.

 

All I'm going to say is that Tyson's skills were **** against Holyfield. Drawing conclusions from this fight is impossible, Tyson sucked at that stage and won by pure physical ability. Against someone who he couldn't bulldoze, he was in serious trouble.

 

Tyson trained two weeks for the first Holyfield fight.

 

Hoyfield's toughness, combination punching and good countering would always have given Tyson a lot of trouble imo. Even in Tyson's prime, I'd slightly favor peak Evander due his high punch output in his prime. Unlike in '93 with Bowe, Holy is the bigger man than Tyson and that's a big factor in my mind. Therefore, he could afford to get into a brawling, mauling type of fight. Moreover, I don't think Tyson was too exceptional later in fights even in his prime. I think he had like only 1 stoppage win past round 7.

 

It's a matter of opinion isn't it? If a peak Tyson outworked Holyfield in the first half of the fight,but couldn't put him away,would Holyfield then have enough to cream him? I don't think so.That's just me.

Tyson was a disciplined fighter in his youth.For one thing,I only remember a couple of instances ,when he was with Rooney,of him being with clean hard punches. Specifically Against Tucker and James Smith.

 

Lets see...Quawi, Dokes, Stewart, Douglas, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe, Mercer, Moorer, Ruiz, Rahman...All of those guys were live wires when Holyfield beat them, Tyson despite what his fans would have you believe, was only slightly eroded when he fought Holyfield and was still a good fighter and he pushed Lewis very close in their rematch, a decision which could have gone either way, he deserves a top ten rating.