How good was '96 Tyson?

Mike stated that he knew he wasn't as good a boxer as he was before prison, but that he was still good enough.
Good enough to become a belt holder, but not good enough to become undisputed champion, or lineal champion (the big question is whether the fight with Foreman in 1996 could show how good he is).
The first real test against Holyfield he lost, although even Holyfield was no longer as good as in the Bowe 2 fight.

 

65% of his ultimate prime I think.

 

Not good enough to beat the very best like Lewis, Holyfeld, but i'd favour him again mostly everyone else at that time.

Bowe was shot, Moorer was chinny, Foreman was getting older and more beatable, Golota was a trainwreck mentally. Maybe a motivated Ray Mercer could be interesting if he takes Tyson into deep waters.

 

Good enough to be a solid win on Holyfields resume. A 96 Tyson would be a solid win on anyone's resume. He wasn't the Tyson of 1988 for various reasons, but he was still a very good heavyweight

 

The third best heavyweight behind Lewis and Holyfield. He beats the fading Bowe,Moorer,Golota,Schultz,Mercer and Foreman.
It wasn't until after Holyfield 2 where Tyson's skills really started to decline.

 

what about 88 Tyson would have enabled him to beat 96 Holyfield? did Rooney have a magic wand? 88 Tyson was "faster" in the sense he would sort of just bolt out there and run all over his opponent, but I'm not sure if he would run all over Holyfield, he didn't have better inside game in 88, his inside against Holyfield might have been better than anything he displayed in 88, the commentators on the Holyfield fight kept saying how Tyson left himself wide open as he was coming in, would Holyfield not be able to catch 88 Tyson as easily as he's coming in? would it matter if Holyfield still came out on top during the inside scraps?

 

Obviously trained hard for the Bruno rematch but looked awful & amateurish, got away with it because Bruno was terrified. Against Seldon he moved his head a few times before Seldon threw himself on the floor from a straight right that completely missed......make of that what you will......& looking at his physique for Holyfield it's easy to believe him when he said he trained about 3 weeks & spent most of prefight prep in court fighting with Kevin Rooney. Wouldn't have made a difference anyway, Holy would've beaten this version no matter.

 

Yep.

Tyson, at his very best, was a ferocious beast of a fighter! But my man Holyfield was is & always will be, his daddy

96 Tyson was about 60-70% of his top form. Not the same fighter.

It's really weird but for some reason Tyson reminds me of Terry McGovern. Are there any similarities/parallels between these two monsters? Or am I out of my tree?

 

I think you're perched securely on a sturdy branch.

Both explosive, ultra aggressive, power punchers adept at taking at world class fighters, whose star burned very brightly, but relatively briefly.

 

Still fast enough and powerful enough to beat a lot of the names back then
Take out Lewis and Holyfield and well, not much else to worry him.

 

And even then as a pure 4 round slugger he was able to destroy a pretty good heavyweight in Golota.

 

I reckon that the 96 version of Mike Tyson could still have beaten most alphabet title holders in history.

 

Physically still tremendously talented, but mentally completely shot.

Every trainer Tyson ever had says the same, he was still more talented on paper than 90% of top heavyweights, even in his 30s but boxing is much more than that.

Technically and physically Tyson looked incredible in the bite fight. He tried to train hard for half a year, he was moving his head, his footwork was much better but again mentally he was defeated and couldnt win a tough fight anymore.
It really ruined his legacy and makes many detractors think he was always going to wilt in a tough fight.

 

Even many ATG fighters would have there hands full with that version of Tyson.