Mike Tyson vs Evander Holyfield in 1991

Tyson was a different animal in '91 compared to '96. Period. Anyone who says otherwise is a hater--and I see the typical, usual candidates to say as much have shown up in this thread. In fact, I think a '91 Tyson is stronger than the complacent '90 Tyson.

Even back in the day everyone thought Tyson had lost a lot of technique. This is not a case of revisionist history.

And as far as Holyfield correctly predicting he would beat Tyson to be some sort of evidence for the Holyfield side, ALL boxers act extremely confident before a fight. It's a part of the game. That doesn't hold any water.

Anyway, Tyson had lost of a discipline and technique by '91, but I see it as a much closer fight than '96.

 

-:nono

-As was his hand speed, accuracy, focus, execution..it was an overall fugly "off night" performance, one sided decision or not.

-Not sure it mattered, Tyson had for the most part quit growing as a fighter and listening to his trainers/corner by 88 anyway. There is little variability in his performances from 91 and his 96 comeback. Just Tyson doing his thing, with varying degrees of success.

 

Because Bruno isn't great. However, it was his only career win over a top 10 fighter so you take what you can get.

 

I would agree he quit growing as a fighter, but he was certainly still equipped to fight a long fight and his timing was still pretty good. He actually nailed Ruddock off some good counters to drop him in the first and second fight. The biggest difference is he was able to go 12 rounds engaging in a fight that was just as physical and he probably sustained harder shots from Ruddock. Against Holyfield he was clearly fatigued from the 5th or 6th on.

 

I just dont think Bruno was a good barometer as to how "back" Tyson was especially how he looked against McNeeley and Mathis. In fact I think had he fought Mcall, it would have been a better one because Mcall was going to be there for 12 rounds.

 

-I'd say the difference was Evander brought much more to the table than Ruddock. Holyfield went to Tyson's body effectively a few times in the early going, I recall a hook to the ribs getting Mike's attention as early as the first round. We are also talking the difference of a sustained jab and punishing combination punching as opposed to Ruddock's much more sporadic one punch wind ups. Ruddock was also there to be hit, Evander made Tyson work for everything.

-Until his final lay off in 2001 where he was coming in over 230, Mike stayed in remarkable condition throughout his career. Generally hovering in the same 215-220 region for two decades..pretty incredible.

"In fact I think had he fought Mcall, it would have been a better one because Mcall was going to be there for 12 rounds. "

-I can agree with that. Though I think Mike would probably stop him Lewis style had they met with McCall taking too much one sided punishment despite not appearing hurt. At any rate, I'm not sure fatigue was the problem against Holyfield, if he had all the energy in the world, he would still be frustrated by his wrestling/rough housing while taking lots of punishment.

 

Im pretty confident neither Holyfield or Tyson would have fought this type of fight in 91. Tyson himself brought a lot more to the table in my opinion, and I dont think Holyfield is capable of fighting as physical of a fight. I also dont think Duva or Benton would ever prepare Holyfield the way Brooks did to hold and grapple.
There wasnt much technical prowess in the fight in any form of a jab. It was a whole lot of telegraphed counterpuncing off of Tysons wild misses, poor balance, and a ton of holding. It was pretty simple stuff.
You saw Tyson have success in both fights when he put more than one punch together, and in 91 he would be throwing way more combos and counters.

 

Tyson's too one-dimensional for Holyfield.
Holyfield would always beat him up.

 

:rofl Yes we know how Unforgiven feels

 

If they fought in 1991, I think Holy would have won even more convincingly.

Tyson was awaiting trial for the **** charge and I dont think he would have had any decent sort of focus going into the fight - I think that may be the reason it was postponed, but using a rib injury as an excuse.

 

Do you really think Tyson was that one dimensional? Was his two fisted attack predictable enough to call him one dimensional? I would classify a fighter like David Tua or Jeff Lacy as predictable one dimensional attackers, but with Tyson there was a little more substance to his approach.

I guess a slugger would be classified as one dimensional as much as a fighter who stayed primarily on the outside, but I didnt think his style held him back that much, he never showed "consistent trouble" with any type of fighter really and the first two fighters that defeated him did it pretty differently.

 

This could have very well been a factor had they fought, but I think what were talking about here is Tyson and Holyfields respective ability at the time and its crazy to me at least, to think he was the same exact fighter 4 rounds and 8 months into his comeback coming off what was actually a four year layoff.

 

-Holyfield had a great deal of success behind the jab in the later rounds. Telegraphed counterpunching? You can see those counters coming a mile away I suppose :rofl...How does one telegraph a counter? Just colorful exaggerated language to downplay Holyfield's performance, seriously?

-Tyson certianly wasn't consistently putting his punches together and throwing combinations in 89-91 against Bruno, Douglas, and Ruddock, at least not anymore than he was in 96. Not sure why he suddenly would against Evander.

 

Yes there was a lot of loading up and falling in on Tysons part.

Tyson was putting his punches together on far better balance against Ruddock thats also blatantly clear.

Tyson loads up and misses with a big shot and Holyfield shoves his righthand in as Tyson's falling in thats how he was countering the telegraphed shots. I think 99% of Holyfields landed punches consisted of Holy countering Tysons big telegraphed shots.

Sorry didnt mean to get too technical for you. :verysad

 

Solid post....

I feel that the biggest thing people seem to forget is that Holyfield's 3 fights with Bowe, his fight with Mercer, Moorer, etc allowed him to continue to grow into the great fighter he became. A fight in 1991 would have been too soon for Evander who IMO lacked the experience at Heavyweight to challenge Mike Tyson successfully. He would fought gallantly but lose to what at the time was the superior fighter.

The single biggest reason why I give Evander credit for his Tyson wins is because those were winnable fights for Mike. He was simply outfought, outboxed and outfoxed. Going into that 10th round Evander was ready for the taking, Mike simply lacked the necessary endurance to pull it off but he controlled the first 2:30 mins and in the last 30 seconds Evander turned the tables big.