Mike Tyson vs Michael Moorer '96, Who Wins?

The Tyson who blitzed McNeeley, Mathis Jnr, Seldon and Bruno in a combined 8 rounds still had ‘Iron Mike’ presence. Bruno was ‘crossing himself repeatedly, like a cardinal on speed’ walking to the ring. It’s only when he ran into 25-1 underdog Holyfield that questions even started being asked about Tyson 2.0

I’ve no doubt that Moorer would’ve gone for it just to get it over with and been brutally knocked out. Nothing will change my mind on this

 

To beat Tyson (including the 'PRIME' version), you needed to fulfill four criteria.

1. Be prepared physically and mentally i.e. no injuries, addictions, mental health issues.
2. Have a decent chin.
3. Have a decent technique and gameplan, do not try to go on war right away.
4. Do not get intimidated.

The first man with all four of the above attributes was Buster Douglas, second Holyfield and third Lewis.

 

OK, we can agree to disagree. There’s nothing wrong with that. I have never made a post here attempting to change anyone’s mind, I just state my opinion for what it’s worth and move on. And my opinion is that I have never bought into the cult of Tyson, pre- or post-prison, and I certainly saw him in real time and will acknowledge that he was a ferocious fighter, but I have him only ninth on my ATG heavyweight list for a variety of reasons.

 

Agreed. When I saw the fear in Michael Spinks’ eyes that night watching the closed circuit broadcast at an outdoor amphitheater, I knew right then that it was going to be a very short fight.

I just have a higher impression of peak Moorer than most folks here apparently do. C’est la vie,

 

I've actually seen that fight a number of times. That and the rematch. There's a reason why Moorer was able to do what he was able to in the first fight. I think Tyson would've beaten Evander in that fight, Hell I'm pretty sure Bowe 3 was almost right after that fight, Evander was going through what he was going through. Hence the rematch against Moorer being what it was, and there being no reason for a rubber match. I agree it's a good fight, because Evander was a bit..............more human at the time

 

I was actually talking about the rematch but didn't put Moorer vs Holyfield II in my post by mistake. The rematch was a close physical fight up until the 7th round when Holyfield took over. The commentators even mentioned that Holyfield looked like he was breaking down in the fifth round from Moorers strength. It's a far better fight than their first one that Moorer won.

 

Moorer beat Holyfield and Holyfield beat Tyson so… truly though, maybe this is interesting. I’d pay to see it.

 

It would’ve been an interesting thing to have seen a third bout. It’d depend on Moorers head but it was very winnable.

 

Exactly. A cursory glance at Tyson - Holyfield shows despite fighting a brilliant rough tactical fight Holyfield still wore quite a bit. The thing is Holyfield could take it.......................

 

I think Manny Stewart said it best in about the 6th round of the Moorer vs Holyfield rematch. It really comes down to implements their gamelan the best. I just re-watch Holyfield vs Moorer II yesterday and when Moorer boxed, he had the upper hand just like the first fight. When he traded, Holyfield had the best of him. One thing that was apparent in the rematch was Holyfield can't jab with Moorer but when he pressured Moorer and threw hooks, he got the better of him.

 

I agree about Holyfield's toughness. It's funny, when I think about Tyson after the two Holyfield fights, he just simply isn't anywhere near what he was even in Holyfield vs Tyson I. The Tyson vs Botha fight I believe was his first post Holyfield fight and from what I recall Botha was beating him fairly easily until a perfect right hand knocked him out. I can't recall Tyson ever really showing his handspeed or combination punching ever again.

After rewatching Moorer vs Holyfield II yesterday for the first time in a long time, it stood out that the way Holyfield beat both Tyson and Moorer was simply by out brawling them. He backed Tyson up which neutralized his offense and against Moorer, he was losing rounds when he let Moorer dictate the range and pace. It was only when. He threw caution to the wind and let loose with looping shots did he truly have success with Moorer.

 

Yes. And also some terribly takes about Moorer beating Holy and would therefore beat Tyson.

To do that take, not only must one forget that Holy was one armed with health problems and would avenge it by KO,. but also about a certain foursome of Ali,.Frazier, Norton and Foreman.

 

Have a look at Tyson - Holyfield 1. Most would have been sent packing as he wore some big shots and quite a few in rapid succession at one point. I totally agree Tyson wasn't near the man he'd been not long after winning the title but he was still packing serious heat. Holyfield kept offsetting his efforts to put punches together via his clinching and counterpunching. He run into Holyfield at the wrong time. If not for Holyfield i think he would have had a strong run, well certainly stronger. Moorer wouldn't crowd Tyson like Holyfield did and he wouldn't tie him up as well.

 

Douglas and Lewis were also quite physical and rough against Tyson. Moorer didn't have that kind of physical presence.

 

Exactly right.