Holyfield-Tyson 1991 - Who wins and why?

November 8th, 1991 - Holyfield/Tyson

Greetings, first time poster here but frequent lurker, so I thought I'd start with a healthy debate about who would have won?

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?

Here's my analysis -

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, while he was not in his prime in 1996, though Holy was still formidable in 96'. Tyson I consider still formidable in 96', but certainly not prime.

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. 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.
The fight would be 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 a 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.

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

 

Some great responses here.

Reason why I did not ask about 88 Tyson v. Holyfield is the fight could not have happened. Rooney was gone after the Spinx fight in June of 88. Holyfield had just moved up to heavyweight that year and his first heavyweight fight was against Tillis. So point being, the fight could not have been put together before at least 89 - after the Dokes win. By then, Rooney was gone and any hope of a perfect mythical matchup prime v. prime fight was out the window.

However, if one could matchup an 88 Tyson against a 90-91 Holyfield I do think it becomes a pick-em fight.

Where as a fight in 91 I favor Holyfield to win 70-30 odds wise.

88 Tyson v. 90-91 Holy is a legitimate 50-50 odds pick em fight. I can see Tyson winning a decision on pts due to the improved defense and having Rooney in the corner. Tyson could stop Holyfield but I still feel it would be very difficult given Holy's chin and determination. Remember, only Bowe knocked Holy out, and up through 96, Holyfield had only been knocked down by Bert Cooper and Bowe in their first fight. The man could take a punch as well as any heavyweight I've seen. So if Tyson wins, I think it is by decision.

Having said that, I still pick Holyfield in a prime v. prime matchup because of his superior boxing skills. Tyson said Holyfield was the best counter puncher he'd seen. Tyson had maybe the fastest hands in the history of the heavyweight division, but Holyfield's hands were almost as fast, remember he was a Cruiser for a while. If you watch their fight in 96, Holy oftentimes gets off his shots before Tyson, so handspeed wise they were fairly close.

Also, Tyson's significant power advantage is negated somewhat by Holyfield's chin and his determination not to lose.

Tyson was truly great from 86-88 and I think he is often underrated as I think that Tyson would have a legitimate shot to beat any ATG heavy, not saying he'd be favored, but he'd have a live shot against anyone because he was so explosive. Having said that, there are certain fighters who style wise I think would always trouble him.

For instance, I think a prime Tyson loses to prime Ali (see Tyson's difficulties against Pinkon Thomas and James Tillis for evidence of fighters that could move and jab effectively), prime Louis (too good), prime Foreman (made to order - see Frazier), prime Liston (close one here but Liston's 84 inch reach with that jab is the difference), and yes prime Holyfield (granite chin, superior boxer, better late in fights, almost as fast, greater heart and determination).

I think prime Tyson takes prime Lewis out because I've got to believe that Tyson would get to that chin at some point in the first 5 rounds and put Lewis out. If Lewis survived the first 5 rounds, then he'd have a legit shot to pull it out, but I don't see him being able to fend off a prime Tyson.

Prime Tyson beats Prime Bowe because Bowe was too easy to hit. Bowe would no doubt score some monster shots of his own. If Bowe were smart he'd try to use his jab and box his way to victory but I don't see it. That fight would have been amazing, probably would have been like Hagler-Hearns at heavyweight, can't imagine it would go more than 5 or 6 rounds.

So I still see Holyfield taking a prime matchup against an 88 Tyson but I have full respect for those who see a Tyson win. These two guys are my two favorite heavies and the reason I got into boxing, so that's why I am so interested to see how people see a fight like this turning out.

I'm happy we as boxing fans got to see Tyson and Holyfield fight twice in 96-97 but can't help but wish we could have gotten the matchup earlier when they were both in their primes or close. While they were both formidable in 96, both were past their best and I think most would agree.

Thus Tyson Holyfield I and II definitely are relevant and count in the discussion about who the best fighters were, but they are not as significant fights as Bowe-Holy I and II - two fights when both fighters were absolutely in their prime.

Where as I find Lewis-Tyson to be a fight that counts for very little - I give Lewis credit for his dominating performance but he was fighting a Tyson that was so faded that his victory means little in the grand scheme of things. Tyson was 36 or 37 at the time of the Lewis fight. The last time he was close to a top notch fighter was 96 (though certainly not prime). Also, Tyson weighed 234 pounds for the Lewis fight, a ridiculous weight considering ideally he'd be between 216-218 lbs.

For the record, I do consider Lewis an ATG heavy but he's between 11-15 for me. Very impressed by his destruction of Rudduck in 92, and his domination of Rahman in their rematch fight. Also, his 2 wins against Holyfield are significant in my opinion. I do give him credit. I had him winning the first Holy fight 9-3, and while the 2nd fight was much more competitive, I still had Lewis winning 8-4 in the 2nd fight. In many ways, his performance against Holyfield in fight I is his best performance because of the quality of opposition. Lewis put on a clinic that night with his jab, throwing at least 40 of them a round, he certainly was robbed in that first fight. Lewis himself has said that Holyfield was the best fighter he ever faced.

Having said that - while Lewis/Holy I and II certainly count much more than Lewis/Tyson - I don't consider those fights as significant as Tyson/Holy I and II - and nowhere near as significant as Bowe/Holy I and II (prime v. prime). Holyfield was still formidable in 99 no doubt, but he was at least 6 years removed from his prime (Bowe II). He did not have near the workrate he did in his prime which is why I think a prime Lewis/Holyfield matchup ultimately goes to Holy by decision. I think Holyfield would outwork Lewis, who as great a fighter as he was, had a tendency to take his time too much in fights, and thus I see Holyfield winning a close fight on pts due to workrate. Certainly I'd agree that Lewis/Holy prime v. prime is a pick-em fight, but again I like Holy in the matchup still.

Sidenote - in real terms, the closest we could have gotten to a prime Lewis/Holy clash would have been 1994 or 1995. Probably 1995 if you could change history and have Holy beating Moorer in their first fight to retain the titles and also no heart problems. Then you'd have to wait until Emanuel Steward got a hold of Lewis after the McCall fight, and thus the fight would have been ideal in early to mid 1995. Holy's not prime, but damn near close at this point. Lewis is almost prime as now he's got Steward to polish his jab and defense. So 95 would probably have been the best time for their clash.

Thanks for the responses