Holyfield-Tyson 1991 - Who wins and why?

.............I don't agree. By 1991, the wheels were already falling off the cart, and he was in the tailspin that resulted in his layoff and eventual comeback. It wasn't like life just suddenly went bad for him during and after the incarceration. It's not that simple. He was on the fast track to "Bolivian" from a very early age.

 

Your correct because it was obvious that after the Spinx fight he became more of a bomber, but i just mean that his desire was stronger then and that would have made it harder to break his spirit as it was a lot easier after prison when his desire was minimal...

 

tyson NEVER fought 12 rounds at a good pace....or even two or three!!!....he liked to fight in savage spurts, then enter into 'silent contracts' with his oponents, each gaining a moments respite in the eye of the storm...holyfield would force tyson to fight at a good pace throughout and possibly stop a tiring tyson in the late rounds, more likely win a u/d......i just cant see 'vander being intimidated by tyson or caving into his doubtless innnordinate power...this would phase mike, whether he showed it or not......im not knocking tyson, he wreaked havoc during his glory years and is a genuine atg...just think holy always had too much everything for him...regardless when they fought...

 

Tillis? Douglas? Why would Tyson be intimidated by either of them? Those examples do not disprove my assertions because neither were much more than journeymen and had nothing like the accomplishments and reputation that Holyfield had. Holyfield was a proven quantity.

Tyson did not "quit" on Douglas, but he was fighting in a haze because of the repeated head blows. That fight proved to me that his recuperative powers are not to be celebrated. Once hurt, Tyson's confidence was depleted -and many confuse confidence with desperation.

Holyfield's warrior mentality was forged in fire -it was not "created as some kind of compensation"... and the critique about his lack of power was imaginary -the man could bang and history has proven it. I was conviced in 1989 when he stopped granite-chinned Dokes who came in at a well-conditioned 230 pounds. He dropped Bowe with one shot and had him out before gassing out. He dropped Mercer and no one could drop Mercer -not even Lewis. He stopped Tyson. Enough said -any argument against Holyfield's power is flat and out-of-date.

The foundation of pugilistic superiority always originates in intangibles. Desire, ruthlessness, etc. However, you are inaccurate when you claim that I think Holyfield wins simply because of his superior character. Read what I already wrote about Holyfield's style and how it is the foil for Tyson's style. His character is the engine, but it is his skill that delivers. Holyfield was always confident in his ability to defeat Tyson and it rooted squarely in specifics -not intangibles.

 

Holyfield SD15 Tyson at this stage.

I posted my explaination a few months ago concerning this one, but I'm drunk, lazy and on holidays at the mo so I'll try and find the link for it.

 

you maybe putting too much on the intimidation deal. but as far as the tools, holy had them to give any version of tyson problems. the only version of tyson that could win was the 87-88 cut and even then it would be a difficult fight. by 1991, tyson had already become a headhunter who could be outboxed. this what you saw with douglas.

 

Stoney,

I think you are under rating both Douglas and Tyson on that particular night.

Douglas threw combinations of punches that were superior to anything I have ever seen Holyfield throw. They were slick, extremely fast, accurate, extremely powerful and sustained for a huge amount of time. Unlike Holyfield, Douglas stayed quick and sharp througout the fight, right into the late rounds.

I am also surprised at your conclusion that Tyson's recuperative powers are not to be celebrated. After watching the same fight I was hugely impressed by the total punishment Tyson was able to absorb, and also his ability to keep trying, and to keep creating chances, right 'til the end.

 

I think Tyson takes it.

a) Tyson was hungry, a year removed from his humbling in Tokyo. Unlike what many appear to think, Mike Tyson was a warrior, a man who overcame a horrible childhood to get it together and become one of the most dominating heavyweight champions in history. Not many can say that. He would fight Evander Holyfield tooth and nail. All talk about someone “having someone’s number” would be irrelevant once the bell rang.

b) Holyfield was not invincible, but looked pretty beatable in defeating two very old men and a mediocre opponent in 35-7-Bert Cooper. Foreman’s shots bothered Vander, Cooper’s punch shocked him. The Tyson that ruined Razor Ruddock could get to Holy, notwithstanding all the “heart” in the world.

c) Tyson had more of his unique speed-and-power combination than in ’96, while Holy was less bulked up than in ’96. It is the same five-pound difference as between the Cooper-fight Cassius Clay (207) and the Cleveland-Williams-fight juggernaut Ali (212). Just as the heavier version of Ali is noticeably more powerful and well-rounded, so the ’96 version of Holy was noticeably bulkier and able to withstand post-prison Tyson’s sizzling shots. A pre-prison Tyson could break the leaner Holy.

d) All this matters because Holyfield could only fight Tyson one way, and that is how he did it in ’96, when Tyson was close to breaking Holy at certain stages of the fight. Of course I believe the peak Mike Tyson could beat any version of Holyfield, regardless of any stories about Holy heroics in standing up to young Mike. The tangibles and intangibles still lean more towards Mike Tyson in 1991.

 

I agree that the 87-88 version of Tyson would have a better shot... precisely because his corner would prop him up over his natural doubt and insecurities. I am convinced that he saw in Holyfield a man who had truly mastered fear. Tyson never did. I believe that Tyson was intimidated by that.

However, you may not be wrong in thinking that I may be emphasizing intimidation too much. It is an inference I make based on the following factors:

1. Whenever Tyson faced unintimidated and skilled opposition who could take his shots and punch right back -Douglas, Holyfield, Lewis... he did not find the will to overcome them and he did not adapt his plan to overcome the challenge. Rooney's exit did much to negatively effect the latter point.

2. His trainers will all tell you that Tyson was emotionally immature and insecure. He knew fear, and that over-the-top bravado you saw when the last Cus connection left and King took over got more and more indicative of that insecurity.

3. Tyson bit Holyfield's ear because he wanted out. He was frustrated because he couldn't beat Holyfield and Holyfield was already hurting him in round one. How can I be so sure? After Mills Lane signalled that the fight would continue, Tyson went out and did it again. He wanted out. Atlas predicted exactly that before the fight.

Normally, I don't like to assume a man's mindset. That becomes voodoo too fast. But with Tyson, it is just too clear to overlook.

 

I agree with all my heart how masterful Douglas was that night. After watching that, I was running around calling out a prime Ali. He looked that good. I was most impressed with the placement of his shots and the variety of the combinations as well as the speed. Douglas the most focussed fighter I'd ever seen that night. The Douglas who showed up for the Holyfield fight was about as much of the one before as Duran was in Orleans. A shame that he couldn't muster up the same determination for a second time... because Holyfield had a world of trouble with big fast men.

As to Tyson's recuperative powers... No, I stand by the observation that they were not what they should have been, or not what you would expect. I think that you are mistaking durability for will. He was fighting on instinct in both that and the first Holyfield fight after about round 5. You could see him getting weaker. You could see his legs start to get unsteady. What you saw "creating chances" was merely trying to set up one big shot. I saw no real strategy and no real determination.

I saw the peek-a-boo defense suddenly make an appearance... that was telling me that he was feeling vulnerable. It was like he was 15 years old and Cus was in his ear. I call that regression!

Whenever Tyson got hurt or went down, he never went on to win. Frankly, and I hate to offend his young fans out here, he did not have the character to sustain greatness and defeat dragons.

He had great talent and ability that masked that void and made him look unstoppable, but boxing has a way of showing you who you really are sooner or later... Tyson was beast on the outside but inside he was crying out for a hug.

 

I dont know, Tyson was stunned against Tucker early as well as Bruno. Tyson shook it off both times and went on to win easily. Ruddock also landed many giant punches on him that he shook off as nothing.

The fact is, Tyson was hurt several times and shook it off and went on to win. Just because he had a granite chin and that led to him never being dropped unless he was nearly unconcious doesn't hurt his legacy.

 

Tyson was pretty good at shrugging off single shots.

 

When did he ever get hit with combinations at his peak? Really never.

 

When he did (Douglas, Holyfield) he didn't appear to take a punch quite as well, although still impressive I might add. He was peak enough in 1990 too.