Holyfield-Tyson 1991 - Who wins and why?

Holyfield, of course.


What exactly about Tyson was so much better in 1991 as opposed to 1996? His power? No. Speed? Eh. When exactly did he show any ability to fight back against an opponent that steadily put pressure on him? The answer is never.

Before one pulls the Ruddock rematch out as evidence he could go hard for twelve rounds, look at that fight again. Tyson was rocked a few times, and survived only because Ruddock seemed content to throw one huge "huppercut" at a time, spread out about one every so often. Tyson would take the punch, get rocked, back off, collect himself, and go at it again. Holyfield would not allow him the luxury of the time off between shots, even if they weren't as powerful. Hence, Tyson cannot recover.

 

Yep, Ruddock totally forgot what a jab was when he fought Tyson. It's almost like it was in his contract not to use it.

 

..........Christ, that was frustrating to watch. He had the fight. Tyson was there to be taken. All he had to do was put his shots together, even just a little. He wouldn't do it.

 

By the way Fan of Sal, did you check out my comment about Saad's upbringing. Am I right about the story where he found out who he really was?

 

..........Hadn't seen that. Lemme go look.....

 

Just watched some of Ruddock-Tyson 1 again. Tyson would lose to Holyfield in 91, he wasn't putting his punches together well at all, just looking for the one punch

 

I'll look later too. I'm sure I have something about it, but can't quite place the year it appeared. I'm guessing around 1981? If you (or anyone) can place the year I'll search through my archives.

 

..........God, I had so many boxing magazines a few years back it was insane. I kept every one I ever bought from 1983 to 1998 including dozens of back issues of much older ones I'd bought, literally hundreds. Then around that time I lost interest in boxing, and was set to move. I didn't want to carry all that stuff around, so I threw them all out except maybe a dozen that I thought might be collector's items. All gone.


What a ****ing tool. atsch

 

Mike's timing was a lot better, he WAS faster contrary to what you believe, he seemed a little more fluid, more agile and most importantly his mentality was better. He would have gone into that fight in 1991 knowing full well what kind of oppenent he had in front of him and would fight accordingly.

The Ruddock fights merely indicate that Tyson can fight back when hit and can fight for 12 rounds. How he looked in that fight is in response to Ruddock; you only react to what you have in front of you. Holyfield said that the way he fought Bert Cooper is not how he would have fought Mike Tyson. Well the way Tyson fought Ruddock is not the same way he would have fought Holyfield.


The best analogy I can think of is this:

If a career in boxing is similar to making a car and the closer you are to your peak the more parts you have available to make that car with then Tyson is a fighter who is better at making cars than Evander if he has all the tools to do so but as time progresses and he moves further away from his peak, he's a fighter who will still try to make a conventional car even though he's missing a wheel. Holyfield on the other hand will make three wheeled car.

The point is in 1996 Holyfield was seasoned, experienced at HW and his level of activity was pretty good and his ability to adjust was excellent. In 1996 Tyson "hadn't been hit" in the 8 rounds leading up to Holyfield fight. In 1991 Tyson fresh of the Ruddock bouts with a healthy level of ring activity would have been more ready for Holyfield. And he would have beaten him.

Tyson UD12 or TKO8

 

Holyfield claims, and many believe him, that he handled Tyson when they were amateurs sparring. Regardless of when Tyson faced Holyfield as HWs, it is clear to me that Holyfield had the style to neutralize Tyson, the mentality to intimidate him, and the character to defeat him emotionally, mentally, and then physically.

Would you care to dispute that?

 

I can't dispute the validity of thier encounters as amatuers but I will disupte you follwing statement.

Having the style to neutralize him means that theoretically anyway that it will make for a great fight but hardly means that that he will beat him.

Problem is that you are speaking retrospect. In 1991 if you said that HOLYFIELD had the mentality to INTIMIDATE Mike Tyson you would have been laughed at and rightfully so. In 1991 Tyson's persona, his mental stablity, and his physical ability were intact. The more I think about it the more I realize that he would have beaten very brave Holyfield and go on to face a much tougher test in Bowe.

 

I don't think that you have an honest grasp of Tyson's personality.

He was, in fact, RIDDLED with insecurity about who he was and what his capabilities were. Are you one of those young urbanites who actually believed his bravado? It was as transparant as glass. A more accurate glimpse of the man's true essence is that scene where he is crying on Teddy Atlas's shoulder because he was afraid of losing an amateur competition.

Now, Holyfield is a different beast altogether -he had serious character and serious confidence and Tyson knew it.

Granted, Tyson always had a puncher's chance and while the chances of Tyson landing are good shot or shots are significant indeed, the chances of Holyfield going to sleep or wilting are very slim.

No, Holyfield has the style and the strategic know-how to beat Tyson 9 out of 10 times. And if Tyson wasn't intimidated before the bell rang, he would be by about round 8 when Holyfield is still there, countering and catching Tyson on the chin. In a battle of wills, Tyson folds first. And that is what Holyfield would force.

 

I have an honest grasp of his personality but I'm on to believe that in 1991 the fight would have been competitive without being close in terms of scoring.
Look at the Tillis fight. That was a fight which Tyson was clearly frustrated, he couldnt put Tillis away and Tillis was swinging till the closing bell. James was unsuccessful but it was evident that Tyson's so called "weak mentality" wasnt there. Look at the Douglas fight- Douglas was beating Tyson from pillar to post but Tyson never got intimidated in that fight. He didnt fight scared, he didnt quit- he fought and tried to turn things around. It seems to me that you've bought the Holyfield warrior mentality that was created to compensate of his lack of size and power at HW. When Evander fought Riddick Bowe he put his all in it- and then Bowe beat him twice. 3x in the eyes of some people.

Your logic of Holyfield beating Tyson lies squarely on the intagibles and the assumption that Mike will fold in this fight. I dont see him folding but I do see Evander raising his stock losing to Tyson via a Gallant effort.

 

............I would first say that Tyson did not have the option of fighting Holyfield any differently than he did anyone else. He had one speed; forward. At any point in his career. Holyfield showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knew how to handle such straight-ahead tactics. Let us not forget Holyfield was also faster and more agile in 1991 than in 1996. It could very well be argued he was more worn than Tyson.

I also don;t understand the point you're trying to make when you say Tyson was just dealing "what he had in front of him" against Ruddock. If this were true, he should have cleaned up. Ruddock held his left low, threw only one punch at a time, and refused to pressure Tyson. The fact that Tyson still couldn't stop him is further evidence that he didn't have what it took in 1991 to beat someone like Holyfield.

 

The difference btween Tyson 91 and Tyson 96 is that Tyson 91 still wanted to fight .when he got out of jail he never had the original desire anymore he just was there for the money mostly.I would probably very very slightly lean towards Tyson but you can never ever count out a great fighter like Evander..